From: MenTaLguY <mental@...>
Date: 2006-08-16T13:39:28+09:00
Subject: Re: sandbox timers & block scopes

--=-NQNXZOwYqC24LrE0RrIv
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Wed, 2006-08-16 at 10:52 +0900, why the lucky stiff wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 16, 2006 at 06:18:28AM +0900, MenTaLguY wrote:
> > Well, I was thinking of injecting a timeout exception with
> > rb_thread_raise() ...
>=20
> Mmnnn, right right yah ok, I'll look into this then.  Maybe there's a way=
 to=20
> throw something that'll circumvent ensure.

The only way I know of to bypass it is with a call to a continuation,
since that doesn't unwind the stack in quite the normal way.
Unfortunately, you can't just toss a continuation into another thread
like you can an exception.

Maybe that will give you ideas for some interesting C hacks though...

> There are no plans for threading in a sandbox.  And, if there ever are, i=
t'll be
> for unsafe sandboxes which may not need the :timeout option.

Hmm, ok.  But can you have multiple threads eval'ing in the same sandbox
from outside at once?  Or is a sandbox a totally single-threaded show?

-mental

--=-NQNXZOwYqC24LrE0RrIv
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc
Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQBE4qF9SuZBmZzm14ERArRRAJ9VaEh/D9uJZ4Sa/4GXeevdDNe/xwCfT+hK
wBM4cJb2W/MtyXkJ8BeGzHE=
=T4zP
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--=-NQNXZOwYqC24LrE0RrIv--