Re: future of bytecode verifier
[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next]
[
Date Index]
[
Thread Index]
- Subject: Re: future of bytecode verifier
- From: Luiz Henrique de Figueiredo <lhf@...>
- Date: Thu, 5 Mar 2009 07:10:18 -0300
> what function names are affected?
In debug.c, see "Symbolic Execution and code checker". Then I guess
remove everything that has "check" in its name, leaving a lean symbexec
that is still needed for error reporting.
> you mentioned the cost of the verifier; do you have any concrete numbers?
Not officially, but I followed my "instructions" above and it'd be
around 150 less lines in ldebug.c, which translate to around 1.5k of
code. I don't have numbers for execution time, though.
The main cost is not space or time, but the conceptual cost of having and
maintaining a verifier that does not work in all cases.
> Could the current verifier be transformed to a lua_Reader example that
> is distributed separately in ./etc (like all.c/min.c/noparser.c)?
No. First, it's pointless to have a flawed verifier. Second, the verifier
works on the bytecode and so making it a lua_Reader would imply replicating
most if not all of lundump.c.