3 ms·
Actually, why not? The main reason that "in the kernel" is concerning is because untrusted code needs some kind of sandboxing, either by static analysis or by r
by moring 6y ago
Actually, why not? The main reason that "in the kernel" is concerning is because untrusted code needs some kind of sandboxing, either by static analysis or by run-time checks. (Most modern systems do a combination of both).
After all, the whole "in the kernel" vs. "in userland" distinction only exists because we get hardware-accelerated sandboxing from the CPU and OS combined.
- 7373737373 6y agoYeah, my comment is actually unironic :) There are a few ways to limit the execution time of wasm programs: - inject code after a set of instructions with a certain duration and in each loop that calls an external function which meters and destroys/suspends execution when a limit is reached (e.g. https://github.com/ewasm/wasm-metering https://github.com/ewasm/wasm-metering) - use a VM which counts instructions (e.g. https://github.com/perlin-network/life https://github.com/perlin-network/life) - use hardware interrupts More random thoughts: https://esolangs.org/wiki/RarVM https://esolangs.org/wiki/RarVM