4 ms·

define "safe". :)

• antirez 16y ago
  Running every kind of script will never corrupt the application memory :)
  • deleted 16y ago
    [deleted]
    • _delirium 16y ago
      Well, if it's interpreted, the interpreter could sandbox the C code it's running, rather than passing it through directly to its own memory space.
      • arnorhs 16y ago
        That would kind of defy the whole premise of this thing wouldn't it? The biggest and most sought after "feature" of C is it's speed and direct memory access (and simplicity, I guess). If you take that away, what's left?
        • _delirium 16y ago
          Depends on the application, but I could see some mixture of: 1) familiarity; 2) simplicity; and 3) minimal memory usage. Browsing the source code briefly, it really does look like it's an interpreter, with C structs representing Variables, Expressions, and so on.
    • unwind 16y ago
      Of course it is possible in an interpreter. You simply need to verify each access before allowing it, much like Valgrind does. Of course it's quite costly do to so, and since C gives the programmer a lot of freedom I guess it's hard to optimize the tests, i.e. to know which accesses are safe without explicitly keeping track.
      • rw- 16y ago
        Are you sure? Even Valgrind does not detect everything. E.g. when you mess up variables within your stack.
        • mfukar 16y ago
          That's quite different. Sandboxing in an interpreter is actually fairly easy.
          • rw- 16y ago
            Ok, you are right.