From: "Hal E. Fulton" <hal9000@...>
Date: 2003-05-14T14:46:38+09:00
Subject: Re: RCR for child execution

----- Original Message -----
From: "Yukihiro Matsumoto" <matz@ruby-lang.org>
To: "ruby-talk ML" <ruby-talk@ruby-lang.org>
Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2003 11:49 PM
Subject: Re: RCR for child execution


> In message "Re: RCR for child execution"
>     on 03/05/14, "Simon Strandgaard" <0bz63fz3m1qt3001@sneakemail.com>
writes:
>
> |Yes your code does *most* of what I want.. but unfortunatly not all.
> |I want a permanent sandbox,  not a setup/eval/restore sandbox.
> |The reason why I want a permanent sandbox:
> |I have instances of Ruby classes owned by C++ which I access over long
> |time.
>
> It's not possible without breaking UNIX process model, which Ruby
> depends on.  I don't want break this.  It would screw up processes.
>
> How about forking off the Ruby interpreter to create a sandbox.  By
> this way, you can create your own Ruby sandbox?
>
>   +---------+
>   |Your C++ |
>   | process | <= prepare pipes, fork, reopen fd(0,1,2), ruby_run()
>   +--||-----+
>   +--||-----+
>   |Your Ruby| <= stdin/stdout/stderr is swapped before ruby_run()
>   |  process|
>   +---------+
> matz.

I have followed this thread somewhat... and I think
this is a very interesting idea.

I will be curious to see what Simon thinks of this.


Hal