On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 8:09 AM, Chad Fraleigh <[email protected]> wrote: > On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 11:13 AM, Campbell Barton <[email protected]>wrote: > >> On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 6:47 PM, Ton Roosendaal <[email protected]> wrote: >> > > >> > I think you give up too easily here. :) For example, we could also make >> a bpy.os module, and mark scripts that use this as 'trusted'. Scripts using >> the os.module itself then require a user to explicitly run it, or being >> embedded in a file marked trusted (own files etc). >> >> You know I already attempted this and have been shown by developers >> more expert in CPython internals then me, that CPython makes not >> effort to support such limitations and that is trivial to workaround >> them. >> >> You assume there is an effective way to control module importing (that >> we could even stop a script from using any of CPythons bundled modules >> - `os` included). >> >> I'd want good evidence this can be done, until someone shows this - >> I'll assume it can't. >> >> > https://pypi.python.org/pypi/pysandbox/ ?
Yep, I'm aware of this however it's more on experimental level from what I can tell. It requires a patched CPython, since the requested pep-416 was rejected by Guido. The main issue with pysandbox is that CPython are not maintaining, and changes to CPython may break it, if it was more actively used/maintained (as with stackless-python), then it would be more reassuring but the project isn't that active so relying on it as a long term plan isn't wise IMHO. -- - Campbell _______________________________________________ Bf-committers mailing list [email protected] http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers
