RetroSearch Browse

Wed Jun 28 18:51:11 CEST 2006 · https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2006-June/066703.html

On 6/28/06, Jim Jewett <jimjjewett at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 6/27/06, Neal Norwitz <nnorwitz at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 6/27/06, Brett Cannon <brett at python.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > > (5)  I think file creation/writing should be capped rather than
> > > > binary; it is reasonable to say "You can create a single temp file
> up
> > > > to 4K" or "You can create files, but not more than 20Meg total".
>
> > > That has been suggested before.  Anyone else like this idea?
>
> > [ What exactly does the limit mean?  bytes written?  bytes currently
> stored?  bytes stored after exit?]
>
> IMHO, I would prefer that it limit disk consumption; a deleted or
> overwritten file would not count against the process, but even a
> temporary spike would need to be less than the cap.
>
> That said, I would consider any of the mentioned implementations an
> acceptable proxy; the point is just that I might want to let a program
> save data without letting it have my entire hard disk.
>
>
Well, that's easy to solve; don't allow any files to be open for writing.
=)

-Brett
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/attachments/20060628/0ddeea2e/attachment.html

Home - News ( United States | United Kingdom | Italy | Germany ) - Football scores

Showing content from https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2006-June/066703.html below:

[Python-Dev] doc for new restricted execution design for Python