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

[Lourival Vieira Neto <lourival.neto%gmail.com@localhost>]

On Tue, Oct 12, 2010 at 1:50 AM, David Holland 
<dholland-tech%netbsd.org@localhost> wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 12, 2010 at 12:53:10AM -0300, Lourival Vieira Neto wrote:
>  > > > > 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.
>  > > >
>  > > > I wouldn't say better =). That's exactly how I'm thinking about
>  > > > address this issue: restricting access to each Lua environment. For
>  > > > example, a script running in packet filtering should have access to a
>  > > > different set of kernel functions than a script running in process
>  > > > scheduling.
>  > >
>  > > ...so what do you do if the script calls a bunch of kernel functions
>  > > and then crashes?
>  >
>  > if a script crashes, it raises an exception that can be caught by the
>  > kernel (as an error code)..
>
> Right... so how do you restore the kernel to a valid state?

Why wouldn't it be a valid state after a script crash? I didn't get
that. Can you exemplify it?

--
Lourival Vieira Neto