Can you elaborate on what you mean by "permanent write-protection"? Is that to prevent code being overwritten? If so, that is just one possible attack.
Does LuaJIT implement techniques to mitigate heap spray attacks and heap inspection problems? JS engines work against that by initializing things like typed arrays to 0, and by overwriting objects when they are free'd. These have a runtime cost though, I'm curious if LuaJIT incurs it as well.
Regarding maintainability, your handwritten interpreter in assembly is not something I would expect other people to easily get up to speed on. The JS engine codebases are more approachable IMHO.
Can you elaborate on what you mean by "permanent write-protection"? Is that to prevent code being overwritten? If so, that is just one possible attack.
Does LuaJIT implement techniques to mitigate heap spray attacks and heap inspection problems? JS engines work against that by initializing things like typed arrays to 0, and by overwriting objects when they are free'd. These have a runtime cost though, I'm curious if LuaJIT incurs it as well.
Regarding maintainability, your handwritten interpreter in assembly is not something I would expect other people to easily get up to speed on. The JS engine codebases are more approachable IMHO.