VMMaker organzation (was: Re: [Vm-dev] Fwd:Include CryptographicPrimitives In VM's - DESPlugin)

[Ron Teitelbaum]

Tim,

I know we've discussed this already.  The code will work both internally and
externally now, but there are still concerns and I still believe that this
is one set of code that needs to be internal and not external.  

The first concern is security.  My concern is communication between the VM
and the dll.  I won't pretend to be and expert on the dll load and memory
handling but simple is definitely better.

The second concern is packaging.  One of the requirements of cryptographic
validation is isolation.  We need to find a way to isolate our code and
guarantee that it is run unmodified.  Having a single file to protect is a
definite advantage, especially if part of our solution is a signed VM.

I think I understand the point you are trying to make, and still believe
that internal is better and eventually it may be mandatory.

Thanks,
Ron

> -----Original Message-----
> From: tim Rowledge [mailto:tim at rowledge.org]
> Sent: Monday, October 16, 2006 7:59 PM
> To: Ron at USMedRec.com; Squeak Virtual Machine Development Discussion
> Subject: Re: VMMaker organzation (was: Re: [Vm-dev] Fwd:Include
> CryptographicPrimitives In VM's - DESPlugin)
> 
> Ron, I can't help thinking you're confused about something here.
> Internal or external makes no difference to the plugin. If you've
> written code that only works with it built and linked internal then
> you've written it wrong.
> 
> The *only* particular value to making a plugin internal is that it
> simplifies distribution for unix & windows platforms by having a
> single executable.
> 
> On 16-Oct-06, at 4:52 PM, Ron Teitelbaum wrote:
> 
> >
> > Andreas,
> >
> > Yeah we can do that already but it's been a major pain in the pa-
> > toody too!
> > That's why we want to go with an internal vm code.  We lost one
> > platform
> > plugin and had to make a new one, and now with the des smalltalk
> > representation if the plugin is not there it still works, just
> > really badly
> > (but good enough for testing).
> 
> I'm confused about "We lost one platform plugin" - can you expand on
> this?
> 
> 
> tim
> --
> tim Rowledge; tim at rowledge.org; http://www.rowledge.org/tim
> Strange OpCodes: RJT: Read and Jam Tape
> 
>