[racket-users] DrRacket on OpenBSD 6.0

Hello, FYI, W^X is now more strictly enforced on OpenBSD so DrRacket is not going to work anymore be default: https://marc.info/?l=openbsd-misc&m=147273821220405 "We are pleased to announce the official release of OpenBSD 6.0. [...] - Security improvements: o W^X is now strictly enforced by

Re: [racket-users] racket not W^X?

Robby Findler wrote: >How is it possible to generate code at runtime and also enforce W^X? Short answer: using the mprotect system call (see the second paragraph below). Suppose your racket web server has a memory page somewhere which is both writable and executable. A pirate uses a buffer overf

Re: [racket-users] racket not W^X?

Matthew Flatt wrote: >Since, as you note, units of JIT >generation tend to be smaller than a page, this creates trouble if >JITted code running in one thread is allocated on the same page as >JITting in progress in another thread. My guess is that from the point of view of security the proper way

[racket-users] racket not W^X?

Hello, I was reading a discussion about "an upcoming Common Criteria requirement that no memory may be executable and writable at the same time": https://readlist.com/lists/openbsd.org/misc/33/168358.html (Common Criteria = the Common Criteria for Information Technology Security Evaluation standar

Re: [racket] How about a python ffi for Racket?

Matthias Felleisen wrote: >One of my former student researchers performed this work (Daniel >Silva supervised by Philippe Meunier). The web site for the project: http://plt-spy.sourceforge.net/home.html And the code: http://sourceforge.net/projects/plt-spy/ Anyone who's interested in p

Re: [racket] (string? "c'est ne pas une string")

Robby Findler wrote: >On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 12:49 PM, Vincent St-Amour >wrote: >> How about "Ceci n'est pas une string."? That's closer to correct >> grammar, and the joke is still easy to understand. > >Would the Académie française approve of this joke? My guess would be that, yes, probably t

Re: [racket] letoverlambda

Eli Barzilay wrote: >It's more than that -- the "theoretically advanced ... but" that he >uses shows off that he really considers the CL macros to be more >advanced. That's because he apparently only knows about syntax-rule and not syntax-case. Look for the word "hygienic" in chapter 3 of his boo

Re: [racket] adding other objects to custodian

Matthew Flatt wrote: >At Sun, 4 Jul 2010 21:08:33 -0400, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote: >I'm not getting the point here. As far as I know, a subprocess can >create a new session in much the same way that it can create a new >group Yes, any process which is not a process group leader can call setsid to