> It can hose your memory all it wants, it can just only do so within the confines of the sandbox.

True, although as I understand it the WASI component model at least allows multiple fine-grained sandboxes, so it's somewhere in-between per-object capabilities and one big sandbox for your entire program. I haven't actually used it yet so I might be wrong about that.

> so you'll probably have to wait ten years to get something comparable from WASI

I think for many WASI use cases the capability control would be done by the host program itself, so you don't need OS-level support for it. E.g. with Wasmtime I do

  WasiCtxBuilder::new()
        .allow_tcp(false)
        .allow_udp(false)
        .allow_ip_name_lookup(false)

But yeah a standard WASI program can't itself decide to give up capabilities.

▲ pjmlp 13 hours ago | parent [-]

WASI is basically CORBA, and DCOM, PDO for newer generations.

Or if you prefer the bytecode based evolution of them, RMI and .NET Remoting.

I don't see it going that far.

The WebAssembly development experience on the browser mostly still sucks, especially the debugging part, and on the server it is another yet another bytecode.

Finally, there is hardly any benefit over OS processes, talking over JSON-RPC (aka how REST gets mostly used), GraphQL, gRPC, or plain traditional OS IPC.

▲

IshKebab 10 hours ago | parent [-]

> hardly any benefit over OS processes, talking over JSON-RPC

Hardly any benefit except portability and sandboxing, the main reasons WASM exists?

▲

kllrnohj 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

WASM sacrifices guest security & performance in order to provide mediocre host sandboxing, though. It might be a useful tradeoff sometimes, but proper process-based sandboxing is so much stronger and lets the guest also have full security & performance.

▲

IshKebab 3 hours ago | parent [-]

How is process-based sandboxing stronger? Also the performance penalty is not only due to sandboxing (I doubt it's even mostly due to it). Likely more significant is the portability.

	▲	jacquesm 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		> How is process-based sandboxing stronger? Because the guarantees themselves are stronger, process isolation is something we have decades of experience with, it goes wrong every now and then but those are rare instances whereas what amounts to application level isolation is much weaker in terms the guarantees it that it provides and the maturity level of the code. That suggests that if you base your isolation scheme on processes rather than 'just' sandboxing that you will come out ahead and even with all other things the same you'd have one more layer in your stack of swiss cheese slices. A VM would offer another layer of protection on top of that, one with yet stronger guarantees.

▲

pjmlp 10 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

WASM is only portable if the only thing it does is heating up CPU, given that everything else depends on the host.

	▲	IshKebab 5 hours ago \| parent [-]
		No because the host can present the same interface on every platform. I do think that WASI is waaay to much "let's just copy POSIX and screw other platforms", but it does work pretty well even on Windows.