From owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG  Tue Sep  2 00:03:27 2014
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [8.8.178.115])
 (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
 (No client certificate requested)
 by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 702EF7C0
 for <freebsd-arch@freebsd.org>; Tue,  2 Sep 2014 00:03:27 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from elvis.mu.org (elvis.mu.org [192.203.228.196])
 by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5B6DD1433
 for <freebsd-arch@freebsd.org>; Tue,  2 Sep 2014 00:03:26 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from u10-2-16-021.office.norse-data.com (unknown [50.204.88.51])
 by elvis.mu.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id AB10F346DDEB;
 Mon,  1 Sep 2014 17:03:25 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <540509C6.3090909@mu.org>
Date: Mon, 01 Sep 2014 17:05:26 -0700
From: Alfred Perlstein <bright@mu.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.9;
 rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
Subject: Re: script(2) [was: [CFT/review] new sendfile(2)]
References: <20140529102054.GX50679@FreeBSD.org>
 <20140729232404.GF43962@funkthat.com> <20140831165022.GE7693@FreeBSD.org>
 <540382E2.3040004@freebsd.org> <2770.1409522711@critter.freebsd.dk>
 <5403B13C.60008@freebsd.org> <4204.1409549879@critter.freebsd.dk>
 <5404D1B8.9010006@mu.org> <40210.1409607245@critter.freebsd.dk>
In-Reply-To: <40210.1409607245@critter.freebsd.dk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org
X-BeenThere: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18-1
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussion related to FreeBSD architecture <freebsd-arch.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/options/freebsd-arch>,
 <mailto:freebsd-arch-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-arch/>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-arch@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-arch-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-arch>,
 <mailto:freebsd-arch-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 02 Sep 2014 00:03:27 -0000


On 9/1/14 2:34 PM, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
> --------
> In message <5404D1B8.9010006@mu.org>, Alfred Perlstein writes:
>
>>> In message <5403B13C.60008@freebsd.org>, Alfred Perlstein writes:
>>>
>>>> Lua at the syscall level makes sense. :)
>>> I doubt it.
>>>
>>> We're looking at high performance stuff and we don't want a silly
>>> parser and string processing involved.
>>>
>> Would it really matter?  Lua is bytecode, [...]
> I though you wanted the interpreter in the kernel.
>
> If it's only the executor, then ... maybe...
>
> We'd need to do a serious audit of the lua bytecode first...
>
So you mean you'd inject the lua bytecode into kernel?  Hmm, I'm not 
sure it matters, either way would be interesting.  I think losing "eval" 
expressions might not be worth it.  Just because you *can* write bad 
code, doesn't mean you should bar it because those facilities can be 
made to make very interesting things.

-Alfred