[e-lang] Newbie questions about persistence (Attn MarkM: Possible surprise-vulnerability in persistence protocol)

[Thomas Leonard]

On Sat, 2009-09-19 at 11:42 -0400, Mark Miller wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 14, 2009 at 3:43 PM, Kevin Reid <kpreid at mac.com> wrote:
[...]
> > IMO, ScopeSetup should directly get the sealer from the
> > PersistentKeyHolder, rather than having E-level code do it. There may
> > be a reason to have more configurability than that though.
> >
> > MarkM, is there any reason the persistence sealer should not be widely
> > available?
> 
> An oversight. This is a good plan. Thomas, feel free to submit a
> patch. Kevin, feel free to make a commitment along the lines you
> explain above.

OK, here's an attempt at a patch. I didn't find any documentation on the
safej syntax, so I'm just guessing here. I didn't see any way to make
just the getTHE_BRAND() and getTHE_SEALER() methods safe, whilst still
allowing getTHE_UNSEALER() to be accessible using <unsafe>, so I made a
new class.

I named the class PersistentSealer (rather than PersistenceSealer) to
match PersistentKeyHolder.

The seal function takes an extra "self" parameter, currently ignored, in
anticipation of Kevin's changes to the persistence protocol.

Thanks,


-- 
Dr Thomas Leonard
IT Innovation Centre
2 Venture Road
Southampton
Hampshire SO16 7NP

Tel: +44 0 23 8076 0834
Fax: +44 0 23 8076 0833
mailto:tal at it-innovation.soton.ac.uk
http://www.it-innovation.soton.ac.uk 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 0001-Make-the-persistence-brand-and-sealer-widely-availab.patch
Type: text/x-patch
Size: 3900 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.eros-os.org/pipermail/e-lang/attachments/20090924/ad2df7c4/attachment.bin