Re: RFC: (ice-9 sandbox)

[Ludovic Courtès]

Andy Wingo <address@hidden> skribis:

> On Fri 31 Mar 2017 13:33, address@hidden (Ludovic Courtès) writes:

[...]

>>> ;; These can only form part of a safe binding set if no mutable
>>> ;; pair is exposed to the sandbox.
>>> (define *mutating-pair-bindings*
>>>   '(((guile)
>>>      set-car!
>>>      set-cdr!)))
>>
>> When used on a literal pair (mapped read-only), these can cause a
>> segfault.  Now since the code is ‘eval’d, the only literal pairs it can
>> see are those passed by the caller I suppose, so this may be safe?
>
> Who knows.  I mean vector-set! can also cause segfaults.  I think we
> should fix that situation to throw an exception.

Yes, that would be nice, though I suppose it’s currently tricky to
achieve no?  Maybe that newfangled ‘userfaultfd’ will save us all.

>>> (define *all-pure-and-impure-bindings*
>>>   (append *all-pure-bindings*
>>
>> Last but not least: why all the stars?  :-)
>> I’m used to ‘%something’.
>
> For me I read % as being pronounced "sys" and indicating internal
> bindings.  Why do you use it for globals?  Is it your proposal that we
> use it for globals?

I tend to do that but I realize I must be a minority here.  Let it be
stars then.  :-)

Thanks for working on this!

Ludo’.