Simon Willison’s Weblog

MicroQuickJS. New project from programming legend Fabrice Bellard, of ffmpeg and QEMU and QuickJS and so much more fame:

MicroQuickJS (aka. MQuickJS) is a Javascript engine targetted at embedded systems. It compiles and runs Javascript programs with as low as 10 kB of RAM. The whole engine requires about 100 kB of ROM (ARM Thumb-2 code) including the C library. The speed is comparable to QuickJS.

It supports a subset of full JavaScript, though it looks like a rich and full-featured subset to me.

One of my ongoing interests is sandboxing: mechanisms for executing untrusted code - from end users or generated by LLMs - in an environment that restricts memory usage and applies a strict time limit and restricts file or network access. Could MicroQuickJS be useful in that context?

I fired up Claude Code for web (on my iPhone) and kicked off an asynchronous research project to see explore that question:

My full prompt is here. It started like this:

Clone https://github.com/bellard/mquickjs to /tmp

Investigate this code as the basis for a safe sandboxing environment for running untrusted code such that it cannot exhaust memory or CPU or access files or the network

First try building python bindings for this using FFI - write a script that builds these by checking out the code to /tmp and building against that, to avoid copying the C code in this repo permanently. Write and execute tests with pytest to exercise it as a sandbox

Then build a "real" Python extension not using FFI and experiment with that

Then try compiling the C to WebAssembly and exercising it via both node.js and Deno, with a similar suite of tests [...]

I later added to the interactive session:

Does it have a regex engine that might allow a resource exhaustion attack from an expensive regex?

(The answer was no - the regex engine calls the interrupt handler even during pathological expression backtracking, meaning that any configured time limit should still hold.)

Here's the full transcript and the final report.

Some key observations:

• MicroQuickJS is very well suited to the sandbox problem. It has robust near and time limits baked in, it doesn't expose any dangerous primitive like filesystem of network access and even has a regular expression engine that protects against exhaustion attacks (provided you configure a time limit).
• Claude span up and tested a Python library that calls a MicroQuickJS shared library (involving a little bit of extra C), a compiled a Python binding and a library that uses the original MicroQuickJS CLI tool. All of those approaches work well.
• Compiling to WebAssembly was a little harder. It got a version working in Node.js and Deno and Pyodide, but the Python libraries wasmer and wasmtime proved harder, apparently because "mquickjs uses setjmp/longjmp for error handling". It managed to get to a working wasmtime version with a gross hack.

I'm really excited about this. MicroQuickJS is tiny, full featured, looks robust and comes from excellent pedigree. I think this makes for a very solid new entrant in the quest for a robust sandbox.

Update: I had Claude Code build tools.simonwillison.net/microquickjs, an interactive web playground for trying out the WebAssembly build of MicroQuickJS, adapted from my previous QuickJS plaground. My QuickJS page loads 2.28 MB (675 KB transferred). The MicroQuickJS one loads 303 KB (120 KB transferred).

Here are the prompts I used for that.