Compare commits
1 Commits
| Author | SHA1 | Date | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 4d690a25a5 |
@@ -0,0 +1,369 @@
|
|||||||
|
# Editor Architecture: Godot Editor Plugin vs. In-Game Editor
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
> **Status:** Proposed
|
||||||
|
> **Owner:** Platform team
|
||||||
|
> **Related:** World chunk data format & persistence, server authority + client
|
||||||
|
> prediction, content moderation & age verification, avatar component system
|
||||||
|
> **Godot version:** 4.6.2 stable
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
## 1. Overview
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
This document evaluates the two primary ways to build the **world/level
|
||||||
|
authoring tool** for **agp-game**:
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
- **(a) Godot editor plugin** — extend the Godot editor itself with custom
|
||||||
|
panels, dock widgets, and tools that operate on the project's scenes and
|
||||||
|
resources.
|
||||||
|
- **(b) In-game editor** — a fully custom editor built as game UI (Godot
|
||||||
|
`Control` nodes) that runs inside the running game, editing the game's own
|
||||||
|
world data.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
The goal is to pick the approach that best fits the platform's constraints:
|
||||||
|
a **server-authoritative** multiplayer game where the **world is stored as
|
||||||
|
versioned chunks** (see `world.md`), content is **moderation-flagged** (see
|
||||||
|
`content_moderation.md`), and the client is a **shipped binary** that players
|
||||||
|
run (not a dev tool).
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
This document is a **decision record**: it lays out the trade-offs, gives a
|
||||||
|
clear recommendation, and defines the resulting architecture boundaries.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
---
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
## 2. Context & Constraints
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
Before comparing the two approaches, we must fix the constraints that drive the
|
||||||
|
decision. These come from the existing architecture docs.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
### 2.1 The World Is Data, Not Scenes
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
`world.md` defines the world as **chunk data** (JSON for authoring, binary for
|
||||||
|
runtime/network), persisted in SQLite on the server. A chunk is the atomic unit
|
||||||
|
of load, save, and stream. The **server is the only writer** to the store;
|
||||||
|
clients submit **deltas** against a `base_revision` and the server validates and
|
||||||
|
applies them.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
**Implication:** The editor's output is **chunk payloads**, not `.tscn` scene
|
||||||
|
files. Whatever editor we build must serialize to the chunk contract, not to
|
||||||
|
Godot scene resources.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
### 2.2 Server-Authoritative & Moderation-Aware
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
- The server validates every edit (schema, bounds, moderation) before
|
||||||
|
persisting (`world.md` §5.4).
|
||||||
|
- Content carries **content flags** aggregated from referenced assets/scripts
|
||||||
|
(`content_moderation.md` §3). Mature content is gated behind age verification.
|
||||||
|
- The client receives a **content manifest** and never loads content not in it.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
**Implication:** An editor that runs on a **player's machine** cannot be the
|
||||||
|
authority on what gets published. Editing must go through the server's
|
||||||
|
validation pipeline, and the editor must surface moderation flags.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
### 2.3 The Client Is a Shipped Binary
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
The game is a multiplayer product. Players run a **release build**. The Godot
|
||||||
|
editor is a **development tool** that players do not have.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
**Implication:** If authoring is a first-class *player* feature (user-generated
|
||||||
|
content), the editor must ship inside the game binary. If authoring is a
|
||||||
|
*developer/platform* feature, it can live in the editor.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
### 2.4 Two Distinct Audiences
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
The evaluation must separate two audiences, because they have opposite needs:
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
| Audience | Who | Where they run | What they build |
|
||||||
|
|----------|-----|----------------|-----------------|
|
||||||
|
| **Platform/dev** | The team building the game | Godot editor (dev machines) | Base worlds, rooms, templates, test levels |
|
||||||
|
| **Players (UGC)** | End users | The shipped game | Their own rooms/worlds, published to the server |
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
The two approaches map cleanly onto these audiences, and the right answer is
|
||||||
|
likely **both** — but with a clear primary recommendation.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
---
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
## 3. Approach (a): Godot Editor Plugin
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
### 3.1 What It Is
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
A Godot editor plugin is a set of scripts (and optionally scenes) that extend
|
||||||
|
the editor via the `EditorPlugin` API. It can add:
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
- **Dock panels** (`add_control_to_dock`) — e.g., a chunk/tile palette panel.
|
||||||
|
- **Toolbar buttons** (`add_control_to_container`).
|
||||||
|
- **Inspector plugins** (`EditorInspectorPlugin`) — custom property editors.
|
||||||
|
- **Import plugins** (`EditorImportPlugin`) — custom asset importers.
|
||||||
|
- **Scene/Node plugins** (`EditorNode3DGizmoPlugin`) — custom gizmos.
|
||||||
|
- **Menu entries** (`add_tool_menu_item`).
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
Plugins are enabled per-project via `project.godot` (`[editor_plugins]`).
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
### 3.2 Pros
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
- **Full editor power for free:** You get the scene tree, inspector, viewport
|
||||||
|
navigation, undo/redo, gizmos, and asset pipeline — all battle-tested.
|
||||||
|
- **Native Godot editing:** Editing `.tscn` scenes, materials, and nodes is
|
||||||
|
exactly what the editor is built for. Great for authoring **base content**
|
||||||
|
(rooms, templates, avatar base bodies).
|
||||||
|
- **Fast iteration for devs:** The platform team can build and test levels
|
||||||
|
directly in the tool they already use.
|
||||||
|
- **Undo/redo, selection, snapping** come from the editor's `EditorUndoRedoManager`.
|
||||||
|
- **No runtime footprint:** Editor-only code is stripped from export builds
|
||||||
|
(`@tool` scripts and editor plugins are not shipped to players).
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
### 3.3 Cons
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
- **Not available to players.** Players don't run the Godot editor. Any
|
||||||
|
player-facing UGC authoring cannot use this approach.
|
||||||
|
- **Tied to the editor's UX.** You inherit the editor's look and interaction
|
||||||
|
model; deep customization is limited by what the editor API exposes.
|
||||||
|
- **Editor API churn.** `EditorPlugin` APIs change between Godot versions;
|
||||||
|
plugins are more brittle across upgrades than game code.
|
||||||
|
- **Scene-centric, not data-centric.** The editor is optimized for scenes and
|
||||||
|
resources. Our world is **chunk data** (`world.md`). We'd have to build a
|
||||||
|
translation layer (scene ↔ chunk) and keep it in sync — a real source of
|
||||||
|
drift.
|
||||||
|
- **Single-user, local.** The editor edits local files. It does not natively
|
||||||
|
talk to our server-authoritative chunk store or the moderation pipeline.
|
||||||
|
- **Headless/CI friction.** Validating plugin behavior in CI requires running
|
||||||
|
the editor headless, which is heavier than testing game code.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
### 3.4 Fit for Our Constraints
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
- **Platform/dev authoring:** Excellent. This is the natural home for building
|
||||||
|
base worlds, rooms, and templates.
|
||||||
|
- **Player UGC:** Not applicable. Players cannot run the editor.
|
||||||
|
- **Server-authoritative chunk store:** Poor fit natively. The editor edits
|
||||||
|
local scenes; we'd bolt on a chunk export/import and a server sync layer.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
---
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
## 4. Approach (b): In-Game Editor
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
### 4.1 What It Is
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
A fully custom editor built as **game UI** — Godot `Control` nodes (panels,
|
||||||
|
buttons, toolbars) that run inside the running game. It edits the game's own
|
||||||
|
world data model (chunks) and submits edits through the normal server pipeline.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
### 4.2 Pros
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
- **Ships to players.** The editor is part of the game binary, so **player UGC
|
||||||
|
authoring is possible** — the core requirement for a user-generated-content
|
||||||
|
platform.
|
||||||
|
- **Data-native.** The editor operates directly on the **chunk model**
|
||||||
|
(`world.md`), so there is no scene↔chunk translation layer and no drift.
|
||||||
|
- **Server-authoritative by construction.** Edits go through the same
|
||||||
|
`request_chunk_edit` RPCs as gameplay, so validation, revisioning, and
|
||||||
|
moderation apply uniformly. The editor cannot bypass the server.
|
||||||
|
- **Moderation-aware.** Because edits flow through the server, content flags are
|
||||||
|
computed and enforced at the boundary (`content_moderation.md` §4). The editor
|
||||||
|
can surface flags and gate mature content.
|
||||||
|
- **One codebase, one UX.** The editor uses the same UI toolkit and art style as
|
||||||
|
the game; no separate editor theme to maintain.
|
||||||
|
- **Testable in CI.** The editor is ordinary game code; it can be exercised
|
||||||
|
headlessly and unit-tested like any other system.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
### 4.3 Cons
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
- **We build everything.** No free scene tree, inspector, gizmos, or undo/redo.
|
||||||
|
We must implement selection, snapping, undo/redo, viewport navigation, and
|
||||||
|
property editing ourselves.
|
||||||
|
- **Runtime footprint.** Editor UI ships in the binary (though it can be gated
|
||||||
|
behind a feature flag / separate scene that is only instantiated on demand).
|
||||||
|
- **More upfront work.** A usable in-game editor is a large feature; it needs
|
||||||
|
its own architecture (tool modes, gizmos, palette, inspector).
|
||||||
|
- **Not ideal for deep asset authoring.** Modeling a mesh or authoring a
|
||||||
|
material is better done in the Godot editor / DCC tools. The in-game editor
|
||||||
|
should focus on **world composition** (placing tiles and objects), not asset
|
||||||
|
creation.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
### 4.4 Fit for Our Constraints
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
- **Platform/dev authoring:** Workable but not ideal for deep asset work.
|
||||||
|
- **Player UGC:** The **only** viable approach. Players can only author through
|
||||||
|
the shipped game.
|
||||||
|
- **Server-authoritative chunk store:** Excellent fit. The editor is a client
|
||||||
|
that submits validated deltas.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
---
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
## 5. Comparison Matrix
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
| Criterion | (a) Editor plugin | (b) In-game editor |
|
||||||
|
|-----------|-------------------|--------------------|
|
||||||
|
| Ships to players | ❌ No | ✅ Yes |
|
||||||
|
| Player UGC authoring | ❌ Impossible | ✅ Core capability |
|
||||||
|
| World data model fit | ⚠️ Scene-centric; needs translation layer | ✅ Chunk-native |
|
||||||
|
| Server-authoritative edits | ⚠️ Bolted on | ✅ Native (same RPCs) |
|
||||||
|
| Moderation enforcement | ⚠️ Manual | ✅ At the boundary |
|
||||||
|
| Free editor features (undo, gizmos, inspector) | ✅ Rich | ❌ Build ourselves |
|
||||||
|
| Runtime footprint | ✅ None (stripped from export) | ⚠️ Ships in binary (gated) |
|
||||||
|
| Dev iteration speed | ✅ Fast | ⚠️ Slower to build |
|
||||||
|
| Deep asset authoring (mesh/material) | ✅ Native | ❌ Out of scope |
|
||||||
|
| CI testability | ⚠️ Heavier (headless editor) | ✅ Ordinary game code |
|
||||||
|
| Editor API churn risk | ⚠️ Higher | ✅ None (game code) |
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
---
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
## 6. Recommendation
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
**Primary recommendation: build the in-game editor (b) as the platform's
|
||||||
|
authoring surface, and use a lightweight Godot editor plugin (a) only as an
|
||||||
|
internal dev convenience.**
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
### 6.1 Rationale
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
1. **Player UGC is the deciding factor.** The platform's value proposition is
|
||||||
|
user-generated content (rooms, worlds, avatars). Players cannot run the Godot
|
||||||
|
editor, so **only an in-game editor can deliver player authoring**. This is a
|
||||||
|
hard requirement that the editor-plugin approach cannot meet.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
2. **The world is data, and the in-game editor is data-native.** `world.md`
|
||||||
|
defines chunks as the atomic unit. An in-game editor edits chunks directly
|
||||||
|
and submits them through the server pipeline. An editor plugin would force a
|
||||||
|
scene↔chunk translation layer that is a constant source of drift and bugs.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
3. **Server authority and moderation fall out naturally.** Because in-game
|
||||||
|
edits use the same `request_chunk_edit` RPCs as gameplay, validation,
|
||||||
|
revisioning, optimistic concurrency, and content-flag enforcement
|
||||||
|
(`content_moderation.md`) apply uniformly. The editor cannot bypass the
|
||||||
|
server — which is exactly what a moderation-aware UGC platform needs.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
4. **The editor-plugin's strengths are not what we need.** Its free features
|
||||||
|
(scene tree, inspector, gizmos) are for editing Godot scenes and resources.
|
||||||
|
Our authoring is world composition against a chunk contract, not scene
|
||||||
|
editing. The plugin's main win — deep asset authoring — is better served by
|
||||||
|
DCC tools and the Godot editor for the *platform team*, not by a plugin we
|
||||||
|
must maintain.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
### 6.2 The Role of the Editor Plugin (Dev Convenience Only)
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
We still recommend a **small, optional** editor plugin for the **platform team**
|
||||||
|
to author **base content** (base rooms, templates, avatar base bodies, test
|
||||||
|
levels) directly in the Godot editor. This is a dev-time convenience, not a
|
||||||
|
product feature:
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
- It can export a scene/resource as a **chunk** (reusing the same encoder as the
|
||||||
|
in-game editor) so dev-authored content flows into the same pipeline.
|
||||||
|
- It is **not shipped** to players and is **not** the authoring surface for UGC.
|
||||||
|
- It should be kept thin to minimize editor-API churn risk.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
### 6.3 Scope Boundary
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
To keep the in-game editor tractable, define its scope clearly:
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
- **In scope (world composition):** placing tiles, placing static/dynamic
|
||||||
|
objects, setting transforms, editing object properties, saving/loading chunks,
|
||||||
|
submitting edits to the server, showing moderation flags.
|
||||||
|
- **Out of scope (asset creation):** modeling meshes, authoring materials,
|
||||||
|
rigging avatars. These are done in DCC tools / the Godot editor and imported
|
||||||
|
as catalog assets (see `avatar.md` §7). The in-game editor **references**
|
||||||
|
catalog assets by id; it does not create them.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
---
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
## 7. Resulting Architecture
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
### 7.1 Shared Editor Core
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
Both the in-game editor and the (optional) dev plugin should share a single
|
||||||
|
**editor core** that operates on the chunk model. This avoids two divergent
|
||||||
|
implementations.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
```
|
||||||
|
EditorCore (shared, data-native)
|
||||||
|
├── ChunkEditorModel # in-memory chunk being edited (tiles, objects, flags)
|
||||||
|
├── ChunkEncoder # JSON/binary encode/decode (world.md §3)
|
||||||
|
├── EditSession # base_revision tracking, delta generation
|
||||||
|
├── EditSubmitter # request_chunk_edit RPC wrapper + conflict handling
|
||||||
|
├── UndoRedoStack # command pattern over chunk mutations
|
||||||
|
├── SelectionManager # selected tiles/objects
|
||||||
|
├── ToolRegistry # brush, object-place, select, erase, etc.
|
||||||
|
└── ModerationView # surfaces content flags; gates mature content
|
||||||
|
```
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
### 7.2 In-Game Editor (Primary)
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
```
|
||||||
|
InGameEditor (Control-based UI, shipped in binary, gated by feature flag)
|
||||||
|
├── EditorViewport # custom 2D/3D viewport with camera navigation
|
||||||
|
├── Toolbar # tool mode switcher
|
||||||
|
├── PalettePanel # tile/object palette (from catalog)
|
||||||
|
├── InspectorPanel # property editor for selected object
|
||||||
|
├── ChunkBrowser # load/save chunks, list rooms
|
||||||
|
└── EditorCore # shared core (above)
|
||||||
|
```
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
- Instantiated only when the player enters "build mode" (a separate scene /
|
||||||
|
feature flag), so the runtime footprint is negligible during normal play.
|
||||||
|
- Submits edits via `request_chunk_edit`; handles `chunk_edit_result` conflicts
|
||||||
|
by re-fetching and re-applying (`world.md` §5.4).
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
### 7.3 Dev Editor Plugin (Optional, Thin)
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
```
|
||||||
|
DevChunkPlugin (EditorPlugin, dev-only, not shipped)
|
||||||
|
├── Dock panel: "Chunk Export"
|
||||||
|
├── Reads the current scene / selected nodes
|
||||||
|
├── Maps scene content → chunk model (via EditorCore.ChunkEncoder)
|
||||||
|
└── Exports a .chunk.json / submits to a dev server
|
||||||
|
```
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
Kept thin to minimize editor-API churn. Its only job is to let the platform team
|
||||||
|
author base content in the editor and push it into the same chunk pipeline.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
### 7.4 Data Flow
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
```
|
||||||
|
[In-game editor] --request_chunk_edit(delta, base_revision)--> [Server]
|
||||||
|
^ | validate
|
||||||
|
| | apply
|
||||||
|
+--chunk_edit_result(ok/new_revision | conflict)-----------| persist
|
||||||
|
v
|
||||||
|
SQLite (world.db)
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
[Dev plugin] --export chunk JSON--> [EditorCore.ChunkEncoder] --> [Server]
|
||||||
|
```
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
Both paths converge on the **same server validation pipeline**, so moderation
|
||||||
|
and revisioning are uniform regardless of authoring surface.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
---
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
## 8. Risks & Mitigations
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
| Risk | Mitigation |
|
||||||
|
|------|------------|
|
||||||
|
| In-game editor is a large build | Scope it to world composition (§6.3); reuse EditorCore; ship behind a feature flag |
|
||||||
|
| Custom viewport/gizmos are hard | Start with a 2D tile editor (matches `CHUNK_SIZE_Z=1` default); add 3D later |
|
||||||
|
| Undo/redo complexity | Use a command pattern over chunk mutations; test headlessly |
|
||||||
|
| Editor-plugin API churn | Keep the plugin thin; treat it as dev-only convenience, not a product surface |
|
||||||
|
| Drift between dev plugin and in-game editor | Both use the same `EditorCore`/`ChunkEncoder` |
|
||||||
|
| Players bypass moderation | Impossible by construction: edits go through server validation |
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
---
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
## 9. Open Questions / Future Work
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
- **3D editing:** The default world is flat (`CHUNK_SIZE_Z=1`). A 3D in-game
|
||||||
|
editor (volumetric chunks) is future work (`world.md` §8).
|
||||||
|
- **Collaborative editing:** Multiple players editing the same chunk concurrently
|
||||||
|
— the optimistic-concurrency model already supports it, but the UX (live
|
||||||
|
cursors, conflict resolution) is unspecified.
|
||||||
|
- **Template library:** A curated set of room templates players can start from.
|
||||||
|
- **Publish/review flow:** How a player's authored room enters the moderation
|
||||||
|
review queue (`content_moderation.md` §6) and becomes publicly joinable.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
---
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
## 10. Summary
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
| Concern | Decision |
|
||||||
|
|---------|----------|
|
||||||
|
| Primary authoring surface | **In-game editor** (ships to players, enables UGC) |
|
||||||
|
| Dev authoring convenience | Thin, optional **editor plugin** (not shipped) |
|
||||||
|
| World data model | Both operate on the **chunk model** via a shared `EditorCore` |
|
||||||
|
| Server authority | Edits go through `request_chunk_edit`; server validates |
|
||||||
|
| Moderation | Enforced at the server boundary for both paths |
|
||||||
|
| In-game editor scope | World composition only; asset creation is out of scope |
|
||||||
|
| Runtime footprint | Editor gated behind a feature flag / separate scene |
|
||||||
@@ -1,159 +0,0 @@
|
|||||||
# GDScript Sandboxing for User-Written Scripts
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
> **Status:** Proposed
|
|
||||||
> **Owner:** Platform team
|
|
||||||
> **Related:** Content moderation & age verification (scripts are one of the
|
|
||||||
> three moderated content types), avatar component system
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
## 1. Overview
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
This document evaluates how to safely run **user-written scripts** as part of
|
|
||||||
UGC (user-generated content) in **agp-game**, and recommends an approach.
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
**Bottom line: Godot 4 has no built-in security sandbox for GDScript, and
|
|
||||||
none of the three options named in the original task hold up under testing.**
|
|
||||||
A script running anywhere inside the Godot process — however it's loaded,
|
|
||||||
parented, or wrapped — runs with full engine privileges: arbitrary process
|
|
||||||
execution, full filesystem read/write, and raw network access. Sandboxing
|
|
||||||
has to happen *outside* the scripting language, not through an in-engine
|
|
||||||
restriction mechanism, because no such mechanism exists.
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
This was verified directly against Godot 4.6.2 (`godot --headless`, evidence
|
|
||||||
in `sandbox_probe/` on this branch) rather than assumed from documentation,
|
|
||||||
some of which (see §2.1) describes APIs that don't actually exist in this
|
|
||||||
version.
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
## 2. Options Evaluated
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
### 2.1 Godot's built-in "ScriptServer" restrictions — does not exist
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
There is no `ScriptServer` class in Godot 4.6.2:
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
```
|
|
||||||
ClassDB.class_exists("ScriptServer") → false
|
|
||||||
```
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
There's also no project setting to disable engine subsystems for scripts —
|
|
||||||
none of `application/run/disable_os`, `disable_file_access`, or
|
|
||||||
`disable_network` exist as settings, and `ProjectSettings.get_property_list()`
|
|
||||||
returns nothing matching "sandbox", "restrict", or "security". Any plan that
|
|
||||||
assumes a flag like this exists needs to be dropped; it was likely conflated
|
|
||||||
with sandboxing features from a different engine/scripting ecosystem, or
|
|
||||||
with **export template stripping** (which controls what ships in a build,
|
|
||||||
not what a script can call at runtime).
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
Directly probed capabilities of an ordinary GDScript running as a normal
|
|
||||||
node script, no special setup:
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
| Capability | Available to any script? |
|
|
||||||
|---|---|
|
|
||||||
| `OS.execute(...)` — run arbitrary processes | ✅ Yes |
|
|
||||||
| `FileAccess.open(...)` — read/write any path the OS user can reach | ✅ Yes (read `/etc/hostname`, write `/tmp/...` both succeeded) |
|
|
||||||
| `TCPServer` / `HTTPClient` / `HTTPRequest` / `PacketPeerUDP` / `WebSocketPeer` | ✅ All instantiate and work |
|
|
||||||
| `ClassDB.instantiate(...)` — construct any engine class by name | ✅ Yes |
|
|
||||||
| Loading and running a second script from source text at runtime (`GDScript.new()` + `.reload()`) | ✅ Yes |
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
**Verdict: rejected.** There is nothing to configure here — the restriction
|
|
||||||
surface this option assumed doesn't exist in the engine.
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
### 2.2 Isolated SubViewport with a limited API — doesn't isolate scripts
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
`SubViewport` is a **rendering and input isolation** primitive (it gives a
|
|
||||||
scene subtree its own render target and can gate input propagation) — it is
|
|
||||||
not a security or scripting boundary. A script attached to any node inside a
|
|
||||||
`SubViewport` still runs in the same process, on the same GDScript VM, with
|
|
||||||
the exact same access to `OS`, `FileAccess`, networking classes, and
|
|
||||||
`ClassDB` as a script anywhere else in the tree. Nothing about being
|
|
||||||
"inside" a SubViewport changes what API calls are reachable from a script.
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
**Verdict: rejected.** This solves a rendering/UI-composition problem, not
|
|
||||||
the security problem the task is asking about. Worth keeping in mind for
|
|
||||||
other purposes (e.g. isolated preview rendering of user avatars), but it
|
|
||||||
provides zero script sandboxing.
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
### 2.3 Custom GDScript interpreter with an allowlist — right idea, wrong layer for "custom interpreter"
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
Two ways to read this option, tested separately:
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
**(a) Write/embed a separate GDScript parser+interpreter.** Not
|
|
||||||
practical — this means re-implementing (and then indefinitely maintaining,
|
|
||||||
in lockstep with every Godot release) a full language interpreter outside
|
|
||||||
the engine. Far more engineering than the problem justifies.
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
**(b) Use Godot's built-in `Expression` class as a restricted subset.**
|
|
||||||
`Expression` *looks* like a natural allowlist mechanism — it only evaluates
|
|
||||||
a single expression, no control flow, no arbitrary statements. But it isn't
|
|
||||||
safe by default: it can still reach through to unsafe engine methods if you
|
|
||||||
aren't careful about what object you hand it as a base instance:
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
```gdscript
|
|
||||||
var expr = Expression.new()
|
|
||||||
expr.parse("get_environment('HOME')", ["OS"])
|
|
||||||
expr.execute([], OS) # → "/home/daddy" (successfully called OS.get_environment)
|
|
||||||
```
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
So `Expression` is a viable building block only if the host **never passes
|
|
||||||
a base instance (or arguments) that exposes anything sensitive** — i.e. the
|
|
||||||
allowlisting work still has to happen at the call site, `Expression` itself
|
|
||||||
enforces none of it.
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
**Static text pattern-matching (blocklisting dangerous substrings like
|
|
||||||
`"OS.execute"` before parsing) was also probed and is not a real
|
|
||||||
defense** — it's trivially defeated by string concatenation, `call()`,
|
|
||||||
`Callable`, or any other indirection, and produces false confidence.
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
**Verdict: partially viable, but only as a foundation, not a solution on
|
|
||||||
its own.** A hand-built, narrow, data-driven DSL (not full GDScript, not
|
|
||||||
raw `Expression`) with an explicit allowlist of safe operations and *no
|
|
||||||
ability to reference engine singletons or arbitrary objects* is the only
|
|
||||||
version of "custom interpreter" that's actually safe. This is real
|
|
||||||
engineering effort, not a config flag.
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
## 3. Recommendation
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
**Don't run untrusted GDScript in-process at all.** Given none of the three
|
|
||||||
in-engine options provide a real boundary, the two approaches actually worth
|
|
||||||
building are, in order of recommended priority:
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
1. **Primary: a narrow, non-Turing-complete content DSL**, not general
|
|
||||||
scripting. Most UGC scripting needs in a game like this (custom
|
|
||||||
interactions, simple triggers, item behaviors) don't need a general
|
|
||||||
programming language — they need a small set of declarative
|
|
||||||
verbs/conditions (e.g. `on_interact: give_item("torch")`,
|
|
||||||
`on_enter: play_sound("chime")`). Expressed as data (JSON/Resource, not
|
|
||||||
code) and interpreted by trusted, hand-written GDScript on the engine
|
|
||||||
side. This has *zero* attack surface by construction — there's no
|
|
||||||
interpreter to escape because there's no general execution, just a
|
|
||||||
fixed, reviewed set of verbs. This is almost certainly sufficient for
|
|
||||||
the actual UGC use cases in this game and should be scoped against real
|
|
||||||
feature requirements before assuming more is needed.
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
2. **If genuinely general scripting becomes a hard requirement**, isolate it
|
|
||||||
at the OS level, not the engine level: run untrusted scripts in a
|
|
||||||
**separate process** (a stripped-down Godot instance or a dedicated
|
|
||||||
interpreter) under OS sandboxing (a restricted user account, a
|
|
||||||
container, or `firejail`/`bwrap`/seccomp), communicating with the main
|
|
||||||
game over a narrow IPC/RPC boundary that only exposes intentionally-safe
|
|
||||||
operations. This is the only approach that provides a real security
|
|
||||||
boundary for arbitrary code, because it doesn't depend on the scripting
|
|
||||||
language cooperating — the OS enforces it. Substantially more
|
|
||||||
infrastructure than option 1; only worth it if option 1's DSL genuinely
|
|
||||||
can't express what's needed.
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
**Do not** attempt in-process GDScript sandboxing via SubViewport,
|
|
||||||
ScriptServer, or ad hoc blocklisting — all three were directly tested and
|
|
||||||
none provide a real boundary (§2).
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
## 4. Open Questions
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
- What do actual planned UGC scripts need to *do*? (Trigger conditions,
|
|
||||||
simple item/state effects, dialogue branching?) This determines whether
|
|
||||||
the DSL in §3.1 is sufficient or whether §3.2's process isolation is
|
|
||||||
needed. Needs a concrete feature list before implementation starts.
|
|
||||||
- If §3.2 is needed later, does it run per-user-session or shared/pooled?
|
|
||||||
Affects resource cost and isolation guarantees.
|
|
||||||
- Interaction with the content moderation pipeline (`content_moderation.md`):
|
|
||||||
scripts as a moderated content type still need a moderation flag path
|
|
||||||
regardless of which execution model is chosen — a DSL makes static
|
|
||||||
analysis of *what a script can possibly do* far easier than it would be
|
|
||||||
for general code, which is an additional point in its favor.
|
|
||||||
@@ -1,24 +0,0 @@
|
|||||||
; Engine configuration file.
|
|
||||||
; It's best edited using the editor UI and not directly,
|
|
||||||
; but it can also be edited by hand.
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
config_version=5
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
[application]
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
config/name="AGP-Game"
|
|
||||||
run/main_scene="res://scenes/main_menu.tscn"
|
|
||||||
config/features=PackedStringArray("4.6.2")
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
[autoload]
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
[display]
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
window/size/viewport_width=1920
|
|
||||||
window/size/viewport_height=1080
|
|
||||||
window/stretch/mode="canvas_items"
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
[rendering]
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
renderer/rendering_method="gl_compatibility"
|
|
||||||
renderer/rendering_method.mobile="gl_compatibility"
|
|
||||||
@@ -1 +0,0 @@
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||
@@ -1,174 +0,0 @@
|
|||||||
extends Node
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
func _ready():
|
|
||||||
print("=== SANDBOX PROBE 6: Corrected Evidence Gathering (Godot 4.6.2) ===")
|
|
||||||
probe_script_loading()
|
|
||||||
probe_os_apis()
|
|
||||||
probe_file_access()
|
|
||||||
probe_network()
|
|
||||||
probe_classdb()
|
|
||||||
probe_expression_engine()
|
|
||||||
probe_engine_singletons()
|
|
||||||
probe_worker_threads()
|
|
||||||
probe_project_settings()
|
|
||||||
probe_allowlist()
|
|
||||||
print("=== SANDBOX PROBE 6 END ===")
|
|
||||||
get_tree().quit()
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
func probe_script_loading():
|
|
||||||
print("--- Script loading ---")
|
|
||||||
var gd = GDScript.new()
|
|
||||||
gd.source_code = "extends RefCounted\nfunc hello():\n\treturn 42\n"
|
|
||||||
var err = gd.reload()
|
|
||||||
print("GDScript.reload() from source_code err=", err)
|
|
||||||
if err == OK:
|
|
||||||
var inst = gd.new()
|
|
||||||
print(" instantiated, hello()=", inst.call("hello"))
|
|
||||||
var res = load("res://test_script.gd")
|
|
||||||
print("load('res://test_script.gd') = ", res)
|
|
||||||
if res:
|
|
||||||
print(" get_source_code() available: ", res.has_method("get_source_code"))
|
|
||||||
print(" GDScript instance has 'get_ast': ", gd.has_method("get_ast"))
|
|
||||||
print(" GDScript instance has 'get_parser': ", gd.has_method("get_parser"))
|
|
||||||
print(" GDScript instance has 'get_script_method_list': ", gd.has_method("get_script_method_list"))
|
|
||||||
print(" GDScript instance has 'get_script_property_list': ", gd.has_method("get_script_property_list"))
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
func probe_os_apis():
|
|
||||||
print("--- OS APIs ---")
|
|
||||||
var out = []
|
|
||||||
var exit_code = OS.execute("echo", ["hello"], out)
|
|
||||||
print("OS.execute('echo') exit=", exit_code, " out=", out)
|
|
||||||
print("OS.get_environment('HOME') = ", OS.get_environment("HOME"))
|
|
||||||
print("OS has 'create_process': ", OS.has_method("create_process"))
|
|
||||||
print("OS.get_cmdline_args() = ", OS.get_cmdline_args())
|
|
||||||
print("OS.get_user_data_dir() = ", OS.get_user_data_dir())
|
|
||||||
print("OS.get_executable_path() = ", OS.get_executable_path())
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
func probe_file_access():
|
|
||||||
print("--- File access ---")
|
|
||||||
var f = FileAccess.open("/etc/hostname", FileAccess.READ)
|
|
||||||
print("FileAccess.open('/etc/hostname') = ", f)
|
|
||||||
if f:
|
|
||||||
print(" content: ", f.get_as_text())
|
|
||||||
f.close()
|
|
||||||
var w = FileAccess.open("/tmp/godot_probe_write.txt", FileAccess.WRITE)
|
|
||||||
print("FileAccess.open('/tmp/...', WRITE) = ", w)
|
|
||||||
if w:
|
|
||||||
w.store_string("probe")
|
|
||||||
w.close()
|
|
||||||
print(" wrote to /tmp OK")
|
|
||||||
var dir = DirAccess.open("/")
|
|
||||||
print("DirAccess.open('/') = ", dir)
|
|
||||||
if dir:
|
|
||||||
var names = dir.get_files()
|
|
||||||
print(" root files count: ", names.size())
|
|
||||||
var res_dir = DirAccess.open("res://")
|
|
||||||
print("DirAccess.open('res://') = ", res_dir)
|
|
||||||
var user_dir = DirAccess.open("user://")
|
|
||||||
print("DirAccess.open('user://') = ", user_dir)
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
func probe_network():
|
|
||||||
print("--- Network ---")
|
|
||||||
var tcp = TCPServer.new()
|
|
||||||
var bind_err = tcp.listen(0)
|
|
||||||
print("TCPServer.listen(0) err=", bind_err)
|
|
||||||
var http = HTTPClient.new()
|
|
||||||
print("HTTPClient instantiated: ", http != null)
|
|
||||||
var http_req = HTTPRequest.new()
|
|
||||||
print("HTTPRequest instantiated: ", http_req != null)
|
|
||||||
var udp = PacketPeerUDP.new()
|
|
||||||
print("PacketPeerUDP instantiated: ", udp != null)
|
|
||||||
var ws = WebSocketPeer.new()
|
|
||||||
print("WebSocketPeer instantiated: ", ws != null)
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
func probe_classdb():
|
|
||||||
print("--- ClassDB ---")
|
|
||||||
print("ClassDB.class_exists('OS'): ", ClassDB.class_exists("OS"))
|
|
||||||
print("ClassDB.class_exists('FileAccess'): ", ClassDB.class_exists("FileAccess"))
|
|
||||||
print("ClassDB.class_exists('TCPServer'): ", ClassDB.class_exists("TCPServer"))
|
|
||||||
print("ClassDB.class_exists('HTTPClient'): ", ClassDB.class_exists("HTTPClient"))
|
|
||||||
var class_list = ClassDB.get_class_list()
|
|
||||||
print("ClassDB.get_class_list() count: ", class_list.size())
|
|
||||||
var os_methods = ClassDB.class_get_method_list("OS")
|
|
||||||
print("OS method count: ", os_methods.size())
|
|
||||||
var inst = ClassDB.instantiate("Node")
|
|
||||||
print("ClassDB.instantiate('Node') = ", inst)
|
|
||||||
print("ClassDB has 'class_get_singleton': ", ClassDB.has_method("class_get_singleton"))
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
func probe_expression_engine():
|
|
||||||
print("--- Expression engine ---")
|
|
||||||
var expr = Expression.new()
|
|
||||||
var err = expr.parse("1 + 2")
|
|
||||||
print("Expression.parse('1 + 2') err=", err)
|
|
||||||
if err == OK:
|
|
||||||
var result = expr.execute()
|
|
||||||
print(" Expression.execute() = ", result)
|
|
||||||
var expr2 = Expression.new()
|
|
||||||
err = expr2.parse("OS.get_environment('HOME')")
|
|
||||||
print("Expression.parse('OS.get_environment') err=", err)
|
|
||||||
if err == OK:
|
|
||||||
var result2 = expr2.execute()
|
|
||||||
print(" Expression.execute() = ", result2)
|
|
||||||
var expr3 = Expression.new()
|
|
||||||
err = expr3.parse("get_environment('HOME')", ["OS"])
|
|
||||||
print("Expression.parse with base_instance err=", err)
|
|
||||||
if err == OK:
|
|
||||||
var result3 = expr3.execute([], OS)
|
|
||||||
print(" Expression.execute with OS base = ", result3)
|
|
||||||
var expr4 = Expression.new()
|
|
||||||
err = expr4.parse("FileAccess.open('/etc/hostname', 1)")
|
|
||||||
print("Expression.parse('FileAccess.open') err=", err)
|
|
||||||
if err == OK:
|
|
||||||
var result4 = expr4.execute()
|
|
||||||
print(" Expression.execute() = ", result4)
|
|
||||||
var expr5 = Expression.new()
|
|
||||||
err = expr5.parse("get_tree().quit()")
|
|
||||||
print("Expression.parse('get_tree().quit()') err=", err)
|
|
||||||
if err == OK:
|
|
||||||
var result5 = expr5.execute()
|
|
||||||
print(" Expression.execute() = ", result5)
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
func probe_engine_singletons():
|
|
||||||
print("--- Engine singletons ---")
|
|
||||||
print("Engine has 'remove_singleton': ", Engine.has_method("remove_singleton"))
|
|
||||||
print("Engine has 'add_singleton': ", Engine.has_method("add_singleton"))
|
|
||||||
print("Engine.get_main_loop() = ", Engine.get_main_loop())
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
func probe_worker_threads():
|
|
||||||
print("--- Worker threads ---")
|
|
||||||
var thread = Thread.new()
|
|
||||||
print(" Thread.new() = ", thread)
|
|
||||||
print(" WorkerThreadPool has 'add_task': ", WorkerThreadPool.has_method("add_task"))
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
func probe_project_settings():
|
|
||||||
print("--- Project settings ---")
|
|
||||||
var settings = ProjectSettings.get_property_list()
|
|
||||||
var relevant = []
|
|
||||||
for s in settings:
|
|
||||||
var name = String(s.name)
|
|
||||||
if "sandbox" in name.to_lower() or "restrict" in name.to_lower() or "security" in name.to_lower():
|
|
||||||
relevant.append(name)
|
|
||||||
print(" Sandbox/security project settings: ", relevant)
|
|
||||||
print(" ProjectSettings has 'application/run/disable_os': ", ProjectSettings.has_setting("application/run/disable_os"))
|
|
||||||
print(" ProjectSettings has 'application/run/disable_file_access': ", ProjectSettings.has_setting("application/run/disable_file_access"))
|
|
||||||
print(" ProjectSettings has 'application/run/disable_network': ", ProjectSettings.has_setting("application/run/disable_network"))
|
|
||||||
print(" ProjectSettings has 'set_setting': ", ProjectSettings.has_method("set_setting"))
|
|
||||||
print(" ProjectSettings has 'save': ", ProjectSettings.has_method("save"))
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
func probe_allowlist():
|
|
||||||
print("--- Allowlist / static analysis ---")
|
|
||||||
var dangerous_patterns = [
|
|
||||||
"OS.execute", "OS.create_process", "OS.get_environment",
|
|
||||||
"FileAccess.open", "DirAccess.open", "TCPServer", "HTTPClient",
|
|
||||||
"load(", "preload(", "ClassDB", "Engine.get_main_loop",
|
|
||||||
"get_tree().quit", "ProjectSettings"
|
|
||||||
]
|
|
||||||
var test_script = """extends Node
|
|
||||||
func _ready():
|
|
||||||
var f = FileAccess.open("/etc/passwd", FileAccess.READ)
|
|
||||||
OS.execute("rm", ["-rf", "/"])
|
|
||||||
"""
|
|
||||||
print(" Test script contains dangerous patterns:")
|
|
||||||
for p in dangerous_patterns:
|
|
||||||
if p in test_script:
|
|
||||||
print(" DETECTED: ", p)
|
|
||||||
@@ -1,6 +0,0 @@
|
|||||||
[gd_scene load_steps=2 format=3]
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
[ext_resource type="Script" path="res://probe6.gd" id="1"]
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
[node name="Probe6" type="Node"]
|
|
||||||
script = ExtResource("1")
|
|
||||||
@@ -1,8 +0,0 @@
|
|||||||
; Engine configuration file.
|
|
||||||
config_version=5
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
[application]
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
config/name="sandbox_probe"
|
|
||||||
run/main_scene="res://probe6.tscn"
|
|
||||||
config/features=PackedStringArray("4.6")
|
|
||||||
@@ -1,4 +0,0 @@
|
|||||||
extends RefCounted
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
func hello():
|
|
||||||
return "from test_script.gd"
|
|
||||||
Reference in New Issue
Block a user