> say, downloading an image of your application’s data off the central node and mounting it read-only?
Yes, but the big difference here is that, file reading via NFS or Docker image *can't be audited*. You never knew what happened on each operating side. e.g. whether it's been read/write by uWSGI process or some unintended malicious process. IF uWSGI take over the source code loading mechanism, you can't inject arbitary code easily, like the php just append one-liner backdoor easy. Modify memory without corrupting or reload requires some serious skills and triggered unscheduled reload or crach the SysOp would immediately know. > You suggest it would improve runtime security and guarantee code integrity Another benifit is deadly easy scaling. If you run short of uWSGI Web workers during peak time, just install uWSGI in a new node, run it by subscribing to the central provision node, every config, source files will be loaded & balanced automatically. The only thing you need to take care of is how to collect user uploaded files into one place. On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 4:40 PM, Mel Boyce <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 21/08/2013, at 5:39 PM, est <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Hello, > > > > So this crazy idea came to my mind. Since Django (or any other WSGI > project) is running with all modules loaded into memory, after the initial > loading the local .py and .pyc source files are, in theory, no longer > necessary, assume that we don't ever need to reload/restart the system > > > > So, > > > > 1. Is it totally safe to delete .py and .pyc files after the WSIG > project finished loading in current version of uWSGI? (Assume workers > don't have to harakiri or reload) > > 2. Suppose we need to build a cluster that we only store & distribute > source file from a central node (e.g. a subscription server) and slave > nodes loads python source files via uwsgi protocol or something, How > difficult is could this be? > > > > This idea could help strengthen runtime security at clustered nodes and > gurantee code integraty. Is my idea bad? > > > > Just some crazy speculations, all kinds of criticism is welcome :) > > _______________________________________________ > > uWSGI mailing list > > [email protected] > > http://lists.unbit.it/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/uwsgi > > While I don't think this is a bad idea, I do wonder if it's something > needed. You suggest it would improve runtime security and guarantee code > integrity; surely those responsibilities lie with the system administrator > via existing mechanisms (solid code deployment routines, robust permission > sets, etc). > _______________________________________________ > uWSGI mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.unbit.it/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/uwsgi >
_______________________________________________ uWSGI mailing list [email protected] http://lists.unbit.it/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/uwsgi
