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? -- David A. Holland dholl...@netbsd.org