4 ms·
Are you serious? You want to ask partners to write embedded C programs using a pre allocated virtual memory range? It's obvious why they went for WASM instead.
by eloff 6y ago
Are you serious? You want to ask partners to write embedded C programs using a pre allocated virtual memory range?
It's obvious why they went for WASM instead.
- CyberRabbi 6y agoMy point was exactly that you don’t necessarily write your code for an embedded environment in the seccomp model. You provide code in a dynamic library format and the normal dynamic linker links the necessary calls (e.g. malloc) at runtime, exactly as a wasm would provide that environment (via WASI or whatever). Since those calls are all only implemented in terms of write,read,exit,and sigreturn you are guaranteed a high level of security. Wasm is no different in this regard. You don’t get libc for free with wasm. The only thing you get with a wasm format is memory bounds checking but again that isn’t necessary in the seccomp model.
- eloff 6y agoThe big difference is the tooling gives you that for free with WASM. You can even run Go programs in WASM. You don't get that with seccomp.