At 01:09 PM 6/28/2007 +0100, tav wrote: >>You know, I find it particularly interesting that, as far as I can >>tell, nobody who proposes making changes to the Python language to >>add security, ever seems to offer any comparison or contrast of their >>approaches to Zope's -- which doesn't require any changes to the >>language. :) > >Whilst it is definitely possible to build up a object capability >system with a pruned down version of Zope 3's proxy + checker >mechanism, it ends up in a system which is quite performance >intensive. All those proxies being wrapped/unwrapped/checked... > >In contrast, the mechanism I am looking at here simply requires >*moving* just 2 attributes *out* of the core builtins... > >Quite cheap, simple and effective, no? > >>Well, you're missing a simpler approach to protecting functions, >>anyway. The '__call__' attribute of functions is still callable, but >>doesn't provide any access to func_closure, func_code, etc. I >>believe this trick also works for bound method objects. > >Whilst that would have been a nice trick, what about __call__.__self__ ?
Well, there's no __self__ in 2.3 or 2.4; I guess that was added in 2.5. Darn. >Or, setting __call__.__doc__ ? What does that do? >>I suspect that you could also use ctypes to remove or alter the >>type.__subclasses__ member, though I suppose you might not consider >>that to be "pure" Python any more. However, if you use a definition >>of pure that allows for stdlib modules, then perhaps it works. :) > >Ah, thanks! Will look into that. If it works, you could probably do the same thing to remove __call__.__self__. >I don't object to making func_closure writable either. In fact, as >someone who has been following your work on generic functions from way >before RuleDispatch, I really want to see PEP 3124 in 3.0 > >But, all I am asking for is to not expose func_closure (and perhaps >some of the other func_*) as members of FunctionType -- isn't it >possible to add functionality to the ``new`` module which would allow >one to read/write func_closure? In 3.0, I don't mind if the access method moves, I just want to keep the access. OTOH, I don't really care about __call__.__self__, since I got along fine without it in 2.3/2.4 and didn't know it had been added in 2.5. :) _______________________________________________ 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
