[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [DotGNU]Running mono-compiled/non-verifiable apps
From: |
Fergus Henderson |
Subject: |
Re: [DotGNU]Running mono-compiled/non-verifiable apps |
Date: |
Wed, 26 Feb 2003 00:01:53 +1100 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.2.5i |
On 25-Feb-2003, Rhys Weatherley <address@hidden> wrote:
> On Tuesday 25 February 2003 10:02 pm, Fergus Henderson wrote:
>
> > If so, this behaviour is wrong. The .NET ECMA spec defines two notions,
> > "verifiable" and "valid", and allows the execution of "unverifiable" code,
> > provided that it is "valid". Of course it is usually not safe to run
> > untrusted code unless it has been verified. But it should be possible
> > to execute code which is unverifiable but trusted.
>
> Errr ... let's back up a bit Fergus.
>
> What I call the "verifier" does both ECMA validity testing and full-blown ECMA
> verifiability testing. The "unsafeAllowed" flag to "_ILVerify" is used to
> switch between these two modes. I called it a "verifier" before I realised
> the distinction in the spec.
...
> (all programs executed from disk are checked for validity, not
> verifiability, at present)
OK, in that case it sounds like all is well.
But your answer to the original poster's question
> > > > Is there a way to force ilrun to non-verifiable IL?
> > > Not really. [...] Turning off the verifier would basically
> > > turn off the interpreter also. [...]
was rather misleading. From your description, it sounds like a better
answer would be that yes, ilrun will run non-verifiable IL; just make
sure the files that it is executing are on disk.
--
Fergus Henderson <address@hidden> | "I have always known that the pursuit
The University of Melbourne | of excellence is a lethal habit"
WWW: <http://www.cs.mu.oz.au/~fjh> | -- the last words of T. S. Garp.