Re: [ANN] Lunatik -- NetBSD kernel scripting with Lua (GSoC project

[David Holland <dholland-tech%netbsd.org@localhost>]

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
dholland%netbsd.org@localhost