Re: RFC: (ice-9 sandbox)

[Ludovic Courtès]

Hello!

Andy Wingo <address@hidden> skribis:

> Any thoughts?  I would like something like this for a web service that
> has to evaluate untrusted code.

Would be nice!

> (define (call-with-allocation-limit limit thunk limit-reached)
>   "Call @var{thunk}, but cancel it if @var{limit} bytes have been
> allocated.  If the computation is cancelled, call @var{limit-reached} in
> tail position.  @var{thunk} must not disable interrupts or prevent an
> abort via a @code{dynamic-wind} unwind handler.
>
> This limit applies to both stack and heap allocation.  The computation
> will not be aborted before @var{limit} bytes have been allocated, but
> for the heap allocation limit, the check may be postponed until the next 
> garbage collection."
>   (define (bytes-allocated) (assq-ref (gc-stats) 'heap-total-allocated))
>   (let ((zero (bytes-allocated))
>         (tag (make-prompt-tag)))
>     (define (check-allocation)
>       (when (< limit (- (bytes-allocated) zero))
>         (abort-to-prompt tag)))
>     (call-with-prompt tag
>       (lambda ()
>         (dynamic-wind
>           (lambda ()
>             (add-hook! after-gc-hook check-allocation))
>           (lambda ()
>             (call-with-stack-overflow-handler
>              ;; The limit is in "words", which used to be 4 or 8 but now
>              ;; is always 8 bytes.
>              (floor/ limit 8)
>              thunk
>              (lambda () (abort-to-prompt tag))))
>           (lambda ()
>             (remove-hook! after-gc-hook check-allocation))))
>       (lambda (k)
>         (limit-reached)))))

The allocations that trigger ‘after-gc-hook’ could be caused by a
separate thread, right?  That’s probably an acceptable limitation, but
one to be aware of.

Also, if the code does:

  (make-bytevector (expt 2 32))

then ‘after-gc-hook’ run too late, as the comment notes.

> (define (make-sandbox-module bindings)
>   "Return a fresh module that only contains @var{bindings}.
>
> The @var{bindings} should be given as a list of import sets.  One import
> set is a list whose car names an interface, like @code{(ice-9 q)}, and
> whose cdr is a list of imports.  An import is either a bare symbol or a
> pair of @code{(@var{out} . @var{in})}, where @var{out} and @var{in} are
> both symbols and denote the name under which a binding is exported from
> the module, and the name under which to make the binding available,
> respectively."
>   (let ((m (make-fresh-user-module)))
>     (purify-module! m)
>     ;; FIXME: We want to have a module that will be collectable by GC.
>     ;; Currently in Guile all modules are part of a single tree, and
>     ;; once a module is part of that tree it will never be collected.
>     ;; So we want to sever the module off from that tree.  However the
>     ;; psyntax syntax expander currently needs to be able to look up
>     ;; modules by name; being severed from the name tree prevents that
>     ;; from happening.  So for now, each evaluation leaks memory :/
>     ;; 
>     ;; (sever-module! m)
>     (module-use-interfaces! m
>                             (map (match-lambda
>                                    ((mod-name . bindings)
>                                     (resolve-interface mod-name
>                                                        #:select bindings)))
>                                  bindings))
>     m))

IIUC ‘@@’ in unavailable in the returned module, right?

--8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8---
scheme@(guile-user)> (eval '(@@ (guile) resolve-interface)
                           (let ((m (make-fresh-user-module)))
                             (purify-module! m)
                             m))
ERROR: In procedure %resolve-variable:
ERROR: Unbound variable: @@
--8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8---

Isn’t make-fresh-user-module + purify-module! equivalent to just
(make-module)?


> ;; 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?

> (define *all-pure-and-impure-bindings*
>   (append *all-pure-bindings*

Last but not least: why all the stars?  :-)
I’m used to ‘%something’.

Thank you!

Ludo’.