[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
- Subject: Re: future of bytecode verifier
- From: Ralph Hempel <rhempel@...>
- Date: Thu, 05 Mar 2009 09:06:13 -0500
John Hind wrote:
This approach makes Lua "safe by default" and anyone implementing bytecode
support is made responsible for the integrity of the bytecodes between write
and read operations (for example by restricting to a protected store, or
even by implementing cryptographic signing).
Can I also request that consideration be given to sorting out the
"endedness" problem for Lua bytecode? Either pick an endedness for the saved
format and convert if necessary on both write and read, or if this is
thought inefficient, have a flag for the endedness in the format and convert
on read if necessary.
Going to the next incremental minor number has usually been the point
where breakage might occur, so 5.2 seems as good a place as any to get
this sorted out.