On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 8:10 AM, Antti Kantee <po...@cs.hut.fi> wrote: > On Tue Oct 05 2010 at 18:24:48 -0300, Lourival Vieira Neto wrote: >> Hi folks, >> >> I'm glad to announce the results of my GSoC project this year [1]. >> We've created the support for scripting the NetBSD kernel with Lua, >> which we called Lunatik and it is composed by a port of the Lua >> interpreter to the kernel, a kernel programming interface for >> extending subsystems and a user-space interface for loading user >> scripts into the kernel. You can see more details on [2]. I am >> currently working on the improvement of its implementation, on the >> documentation and on the integration between Lunatik and other >> subsystems, such as npf(9), to provide a real usage scenario. > > Cool. > > I'm looking forward to seeing your evaluation of real usage scenarios. > If you can find some existing policy code written in C and convert it to > lua, it would make a strong case. The main metric I'm interested in is > convenience, and performance to some degree depending on what kind of > places your plan to put lua scripts in. At least in the packet filter > use case the performance is quite critical.
I'm not too worried about performance issues before running it and having some measures. Anyway, I'm quite open to suggestions =). Do you have any special existing policy in mind? > I don't know how well the fibonacci example performs (and the performance > is not very critical there), but I'm sure you'll agree that from the > convenience pov it is a very strong case _against_ lua ;) > (yes, I realize it's not provided for demonstrating convenience) Fibonacci is just a foo example and it was the first Lua code that I ran inside the kernel. It was supposed to be as useful as a 'hello world', nothing else. However, I do not agree with you, I think it shows a strength of Lua: simplicity ;-) Anyway, you can replace the fibo code for any more convenient function. -- Lourival Vieira Neto
