←back to thread

MCP Run Python

(github.com)
173 points xrd | 2 comments | 15 Apr 25 11:09 UTC | HN request time: 0.002s | source
Show context
behnamoh ◴[17 Apr 25 15:27 UTC] No.43718268[source]▶
So their method of sandboxing Python code is to spin up a JS runtime (deno), run Pyodide on it, and then run the Python code in Pyodide.

Seems a lot of work to me. Is this really the best way to create and run Python sandboxes?

replies(11): >>43718335 #>>43718770 #>>43718841 #>>43719300 #>>43719370 #>>43719672 #>>43719881 #>>43721408 #>>43722369 #>>43723869 #>>43726452 #
simonw ◴[17 Apr 25 17:13 UTC] No.43719672[source]▶
I've been trying to find a good option for this for ages. The Deno/Pyodide one is genuinely one of the top contenders: https://til.simonwillison.net/deno/pyodide-sandbox

I'm hoping some day to find a recipe I really like for running Python code in a WASM container directly inside Python. Here's the closest I've got, using wasmtime: https://til.simonwillison.net/webassembly/python-in-a-wasm-s...

replies(5): >>43721214 #>>43722664 #>>43724984 #>>43725448 #>>43828320 #
singularity2001 ◴[17 Apr 25 19:38 UTC] No.43721214[source]▶
one wasmtime dependency and a self contained python file with 100 loc seems reasonable!

much better than calling deno, at least if you have no pip dependencies...

just had to update to new api:

# store.add_fuel(fuel) store.set_fuel(fuel) fuel_consumed=fuel-store.get_fuel()

and it works!!

time to hello world: hello_wasm_python311.py 0.20s user 0.03s system 97% cpu 0.234 total

replies(3): >>43721856 #>>43722093 #>>43728345 #
1. antonvs ◴[17 Apr 25 20:51 UTC] No.43722093[source]▶
I was interested in how this compares in a kind of absolute sense. For comparison, an optimized C hello world program gave these results using `perf` on my Dell XPS 13 laptop:

       0.000636230 seconds time elapsed
       0.000759000 seconds user
       0.000000000 seconds sys
That's 36,800% faster. Hand-written assembly was very slightly slower. Using the standard library for output instead of a syscall brought it down to 20,900% faster.

(Yes I used percentages to underscore how big the difference is. It's 368x and 209x respectively. That's huge.)

Begrudgingly, here are the standard Python numbers:

    real    0m0.019s
    user    0m0.015s
    sys     0m0.004s
About 1230% faster than the sandbox, i.e. 12.3x. About an order of magnitude, which is typical for these kinds of exercises.
replies(1): >>43723565 #
2. singularity2001 ◴[18 Apr 25 00:00 UTC] No.43723565[source]▶
haha, 99% is startup time for the sandbox, but yeah, python via wasm is probably still 10-400 times slower than c.