Re: [ANN] Lunatik -- NetBSD kernel scripting with Lua (GSoC project

[David Young <dyoung%pobox.com@localhost>]

On Wed, Oct 06, 2010 at 07:14:48PM -0400, Matthew Mondor wrote:
> On Wed, 6 Oct 2010 16:12:28 -0500
> Javier Guerra Giraldez <javier%guerrag.com@localhost> wrote:
> 
> > just curious, why was that needed?   is floating point forbidden by
> > code conventions?
> 
> As for possible problems like stack usage, I guess that if it's running
> under an LWP context it probably is less restricted, but I agree that
> preventing interpretation of non-trusted scripts would be better than
> trying to cripple the Lua runtime as much as possible.  Considering
> that the cryptographic code export is now less restrictive than it used
> to be, possibly that signature checking would also be nice to have,
> other than only limiting access to the superuser.

A signature only tells you whose neck to wring when the script
misbehaves. :-) Since a Lua script running in the kernel won't be
able to forge a pointer (right?), or conjure references to methods or
data that weren't in its environment at the outset, you can run it
in a highly restricted environment so that many kinds of misbehavior
are difficult or impossible.  Or I would *think* you can restrict the
environment in that way; I wonder what Lourival thinks about that.

Dave

-- 
David Young             OJC Technologies
dyoung%ojctech.com@localhost      Urbana, IL * (217) 278-3933