Re: [Python-Dev] In defense of Capabilities [was: doc for new restricted execution design for Python]

[Brett Cannon]

On 7/10/06, Talin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

Brett Cannon wrote:
> Using a factory method callback, one could store the PyCodeObject in a C
> proxy object that just acts as a complete delegate, forwarding all method
> calls to the internally stored PyCodeObject.  That would work.
>
>
> For this initial implementation, though, I am not going to try to support
> this.   We can always add support like this later since it doesn't
> fundamentally break or change anything that is already planned.  Let's
> focus
> on getting even more basic stuff working before we start to get too fancy.
>
> -Brett

Thinking about this some more, I've come up with a simpler idea for a
generic wrapper class. The wrapper consists of two parts: a decorator to
indicate that a given method is 'public', and a C 'guard' wrapper that
insures that only 'public' members can be accessed.

So for example:

    from Sandbox import guard, public

    class FileProxy:
       # Public method, no decorator

Is that supposed to say "no decorator", even though there is one?

       @public
       def read( length ):
          ...

       @public
       def seek( offset ):
          ...

       # Private method, no decorator
       def open( path ):
          ...

    # Construct an instance of FileProxy, and wrap a
    # guard object around it. Any attempt to access a non-public
    # attribute will raise an exception (or perhaps simply report
    # that the attribute doesn't exist.)
    fh = guard( FileProxy() )

But wouldn't you still need to protect things like object.__metaclasses__() so that you can't get access to the class and mutate it?  And if you use a custom metaclass to avoid having object expose the reference you then would need to protect the metaclass.

I guess I would need to see an implementation to see if there is any way to get around security protections since it is still Python code.

Now, from my point of view this *is* 'the basic stuff'. In other words,
this right here is the fundamental sandbox mechanism, and everything
else is built on top of it.

Now, the C 'guard' function is only a low-level means to insure that
no-one can mess with the object; It is not intended to be the actual
restriction policy itself. Those are placed in the wrapper classes, just
as in your proposed scheme.

(This goes back to my basic premise, that a simple "yes/no" security
feature can be used to build up much more complex and subtle security
features.)

Yeah, this tends to be true.

-Brett

The only real complexity of this, as I see it, is that methods to
references will have to be themselves wrapped.

In other words, if I say 'fh.read' without the (), what I get back can't
be the actual read function object - that would be too easy to fiddle
with. What I'd have to get is a wrapped version of the method that is a
callable.

One relatively simply way to deal with this is to have the 'public'
decorator create a C wrapper for the function object, and store it as an
attribute of the function. The class wrapper then simply looks up the
attribute, and if it has an attribute wrapper, returns that, otherwise
it fails.

(Although, I've often wished for Python to have a variant of __call__
that could be used to override individual methods, i.e.:

     __call_method__( self, methodname, *args )

This would make the guard wrapper much easier to construct, since we
could restrict the methods only to being called, and not allow
references to methods to be taken.)

-- Talin
_______________________________________________
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/brett%40python.org

_______________________________________________
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe: 
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com