From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Ted Zlatanov Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: DSO-style FFI Date: Wed, 09 Oct 2013 21:25:39 -0400 Organization: =?utf-8?B?0KLQtdC+0LTQvtGAINCX0LvQsNGC0LDQvdC+0LI=?= @ Cienfuegos Message-ID: <87wqllsyr0.fsf@flea.lifelogs.com> References: <877gdqrc9u.fsf@flea.lifelogs.com> <87mwmmp05f.fsf@flea.lifelogs.com> <87fvsdpato.fsf@flea.lifelogs.com> <8738oc20xk.fsf@flea.lifelogs.com> <87d2ngzlyl.fsf_-_@flea.lifelogs.com> <87siwcxda7.fsf@flea.lifelogs.com> <87zjqjfz36.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> <87wqlnv9bn.fsf@flea.lifelogs.com> <52546F55.1020707@lanl.gov> <87bo2yt70v.fsf@flea.lifelogs.com> <5255EC44.4070203@lanl.gov> Reply-To: emacs-devel@gnu.org NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1381368354 29095 80.91.229.3 (10 Oct 2013 01:25:54 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2013 01:25:54 +0000 (UTC) To: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Thu Oct 10 03:25:58 2013 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1VU50j-0008G3-4w for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 10 Oct 2013 03:25:53 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:44558 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1VU50i-00068n-Cs for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 09 Oct 2013 21:25:52 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:49323) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1VU50Z-00068c-HG for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 09 Oct 2013 21:25:49 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1VU50T-0003DP-Dn for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 09 Oct 2013 21:25:43 -0400 Original-Received: from plane.gmane.org ([80.91.229.3]:43518) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1VU50T-0003DJ-43 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 09 Oct 2013 21:25:37 -0400 Original-Received: from list by plane.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1VU50R-00084Q-Q8 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 10 Oct 2013 03:25:35 +0200 Original-Received: from c-98-229-61-72.hsd1.ma.comcast.net ([98.229.61.72]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Thu, 10 Oct 2013 03:25:35 +0200 Original-Received: from tzz by c-98-229-61-72.hsd1.ma.comcast.net with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Thu, 10 Oct 2013 03:25:35 +0200 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ Mail-Followup-To: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-Lines: 28 Original-X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: c-98-229-61-72.hsd1.ma.comcast.net X-Face: bd.DQ~'29fIs`T_%O%C\g%6jW)yi[zuz6; d4V0`@y-~$#3P_Ng{@m+e4o<4P'#(_GJQ%TT= D}[Ep*b!\e,fBZ'j_+#"Ps?s2!4H2-Y"sx" Mail-Copies-To: never User-Agent: Gnus/5.130008 (Ma Gnus v0.8) Emacs/24.3.50 (gnu/linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:+oYMg3kPePCDxtwLG5Diu4zf0qk= X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Genre and OS details not recognized. X-Received-From: 80.91.229.3 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:164052 Archived-At: On Wed, 09 Oct 2013 17:52:36 -0600 Davis Herring wrote: >> That's pretty dangerous, isn't it? Any memory corruption, intentional >> or not, could affect the user significantly. Is that an acceptable risk? DH> Intentional memory corruption is entirely beside the point -- you're DH> already planning to run whatever code the DSO provides with your current DH> security credentials. (You even already run DSO-specified code as soon DH> as you call dlopen().) OK. DH> As for accidental corruption, you can at least protect your Lisp_Objects DH> by controlling how you copy data into and out of them. (Of course, a DH> wild pointer can corrupt absolutely anything, but you're not very likely DH> to be in an undesirable "Emacs appears functional but is confused" state.) Yeah, I was wondering how much can be done here, but I guess "not much." Moreover, I was wondering whether the risk is acceptable. The other extreme is to have some protocol to externally executed modules so there's no chance of corruption; it's very inefficient but also much less risky. I think it's safe to say the risk of DSOs is acceptable to everyone, but wanted to be clear about it. Thanks for explaining. Ted