[erlang-questions] Ports and their owners

[Musumeci, Antonio S]

Yeah... Unfortunately for what I'm doing we'd like security within the node due to running arbitrary modules, cnodes and ports. I've already began work on providing a filtering mechanism for RPC and net_kernel:spawn by moving spawn into rex and adding an optional filter callback which all calls go through. This would at least allow sandboxing the spawning of arbitrary processes to some extent. I'll be posting that to erlang-patches sometime this week. After that I'll take a shot at adding the open_port option I mentioned. 

-----Original Message-----
From: Robert Virding [mailto:rvirding@REDACTED] 
Sent: Wednesday, February 17, 2010 10:37 AM
To: Musumeci, Antonio S (IT)
Cc: erlang-questions@REDACTED
Subject: Re: [erlang-questions] Ports and their owners

On 17 February 2010 16:22, Musumeci, Antonio S <Antonio.Musumeci@REDACTED> wrote:
> From a language / VM perspective it should be quite simple to include the sender as part of the message. At this point it may not be possible to add without major breakage but it's very unfortunate that was not the initial design.

Hehehe, it *was* included in the original design but we removed it. We felt that it was much more versatile to have the sender include the "from" field. "From" can be any term which identifies the sender and is it not always the pid or even needed. As I mentioned internal security was not a problem.

Robert

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOTICE: If received in error, please destroy, and notify sender. Sender does not intend to waive confidentiality or privilege. Use of this email is prohibited when received in error. We may monitor and store emails to the extent permitted by applicable law.