On Sun, Apr 10, 2016 at 02:08:16PM -0700, Nikolaus Rath wrote:
> On Apr 10 2016, Jon Ribbens <jon+python-...@unequivocal.co.uk> wrote:
> > On Sat, Apr 09, 2016 at 02:43:19PM +0200, Victor Stinner wrote:
> > That's the opposite of my approach though - I'm starting small and
> > adding things, not starting with everything and removing stuff.
>
> That contradicts what you said in another mail:
>
> On Apr 08 2016, Jon Ribbens <jon+python-...@unequivocal.co.uk> wrote:
> > Ah, I've not used Python 3.5, and I can't find any documentation on
> > this cr_frame business, but I've added cr_frame and f_back to the
> > disallowed attributes list.
No, you've just misunderstood my meaning. Obviously I'm not only
allowing access to whitelisted variable and property names, that
would be ridiculous ("your code may only use variables called
'foo', 'bar' and 'baz'...").
The point is that we can start with, say, only allowing expressions
and not statements, and a __builtins__ that contains literally
nothing. We can even limit ourselves to disallow, say, lambda and
yield and generator expressions if we like. Can this minimal
language be made "safe"? If so, we have already won something - the
ability to use "eval" as a powerful calculator function. Then, can
we allow statements? Can we allow user-defined classes? Can we allow
try/catch? etc.
With regard to names by the way, I suspect that disallowing just
anything starting "_" and the names of the properties of frame
objects would be good enough. Unless someone knows a way to get
to an object's __dict__ or its type without using vars() or type()
or underscore attributes...
_______________________________________________
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe:
https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
