[racket] Handin Server + PLAI problem [and 1 more messages]

The parameter solution sounds right to me and the sandbox does sound
like the right level to put that.

Robby

On Sat, Jan 14, 2012 at 8:45 PM, Eli Barzilay <eli at barzilay.org> wrote:
> An hour ago, Robby Findler wrote:
>> On Sat, Jan 14, 2012 at 7:04 PM, Eli Barzilay <eli at barzilay.org> wrote:
>> >
>> > Following a reply from Matthias, I tried it in drr, and that does
>> > have an offending exists, but looking at the stacktrace, there's a
>> > `print-values' so it sounds like the drr-installed printer -- ?
>>
>> I don't think this is relevant. I'm not running the handin server
>> from inside drracket and I doubt John is either.
>
> (I know -- I thought that you might have noticed a problem that is
> therefore irrelevant.)
>
>
> An hour ago, Robby Findler wrote:
>> When I set up the modules below, I get these two stacktraces for
>> what seem to be thinks the sandbox would reject:
>>
>> [robby at yanpu] ~$ racket ~/tmp.rkt
>> security guard: current-directory #<path:/Users/robby/> (exists)
>>   (#f . #(struct:srcloc #<path:/Users/robby/tmp.rkt> 9 17 283 475))
>>   (find-main-collects . #(struct:srcloc
>> #<path:/Users/robby/git/plt/collects/setup/private/main-collects.rkt>
>> 19 4 817 884))
>
> Oh, then this makes the offender clear, no?  In the above function I
> see at least three pieces that can lead to such access: two uses of
> `find-executable-path', and the last `simplify-path' (that defaults to
> allow FS access).
>
> I still don't think that this should be resolved by the sandbox though
> -- doing this means that it needs to figure out what permissions are
> needed backwards from that code.  Instead, I think that this code
> should be explicitly allowed -- but I don't have a good idea on how
> that can be done.  Maybe it should always work with some unrestricted
> guard?  (Sounds like a dangerous idea.)  Or maybe some private
> parameter (or continuation mark) that can be used to identify "I'm now
> in blessed code" which the sandbox security guard can check and if in
> that case avoid the restrictions?
>
> --
>          ((lambda (x) (x x)) (lambda (x) (x x)))          Eli Barzilay:
>                    http://barzilay.org/                   Maze is Life!