Hacker News Reader

> few libraries actually have a good excuse to do I/O (though logging might be thorny).

Yeah, logging would be tricky...

Maybe a "logging" capability could be created. Separated from other I/O.

Such a capability would be weird, and nonstandard, and messy, cutting across several several abstraction layers. But if pulled off, it might be worth the effort.

View on HN

That's solved in similar frameworks by separating open and read/write. You open (or inherit from somewhere) a logging socket, drop the open privileges, retain the permission to write to the log socket.

This discussion is basically inventing a per-library pledge(2).

or apparmor, selinux, grsec, tomoyo, ... But those systems can't integrate into scripting language per-library use case without some serious thread / IPC overhead.

These others can achieve what's intended, but the entire flavour of the discussion is a dead ringer for pledge's purpose and interface, which is much simpler and very much internal to the software (a self-check of sorts).

Haskell indirectly solves this by separating `trace` (a form of logging) from IO (trace is a procedure that logs function call while all other IO must be contained in an IO monad).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com