Feature request - native sandbox function call

[AsafFisher]

I feel like making one binary that maps COW to both host and guest would be cool, that way the sandboxed function can be compiled to the same binary and a call to the function can be done in a native way without a string name but rather by:

#[sandboxed]
fn calculate(){}
guest.call(calculate)

How does that sound?

[ludfjig]

Hello, I've also been thinking about something similar., and I think something like this could be awesome and definitely a cool proof of concept.

In addition to your suggestion, it might also be possible for the proc macro above function to write a new source file which can be compiled to a guest, and then also potentially compile the guest as well. Calling the function on the host side then transparently creates a new sandbox and calls into the code-generated guest.

[danbugs]

Perhaps partially addressed by #376
cc: @syntactically

[AsafFisher]

Hello, I've also been thinking about something similar., and I think something like this could be awesome and definitely a cool proof of concept.

In addition to your suggestion, it might also be possible for the proc macro above function to write a new source file which can be compiled to a guest, and then also potentially compile the guest as well. Calling the function on the host side then transparently creates a new sandbox and calls into the code-generated guest.

Hi (:
The problem with the macro that generates a different compilation unit is that dependencies will need to be addressed somehow... and if you compile everything to the same binary then all the code is already in the text section.