-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 72
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
fix(ses): fix #2598 with cauterizeProperty reuse #2624
Conversation
578772d
to
fd0660f
Compare
3477f75
to
7beacaa
Compare
7beacaa
to
e74d031
Compare
fac3fae
to
6b9c271
Compare
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I have recommended options for threading the reporter, and any of those options are fine by me: we can either thread the reporter
through all callers of getGlobalIntrinsics
, or construct the intrinsics collector from the reporter
available in lockdown
and inject that instead.
*/ | ||
|
||
/** | ||
* Delete `obj[prop]` or at least make it harmless. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I do not have the details paged into active brain right now, but this looks like it might be relevant to a mitigation @leotm needs for Hermes support.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@leotm , care to comment? Thanks.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Closes: #2598
Refs: #2563 #2334 #1221
Description
#1221 was supposed to make ses tolerate undeletable
func.prototype
properties that should be absent, so long as they could be set toundefined
instead, making them harmless. This tolerance came with a warning to flag the remaining non-conformance.However #2598 explains why #1221 sometimes fails to do this. #1221 did come with a test, but it fell into the case where #1221 works, which is a non-toplevel function.
#2563 (and #2334 ?) fell into the trap explained by #2598 and untested by #1221, which is an undeletable
func.prototype
on a top-level instrinsic. As a result, #2563 currently contains a workaround for #2598 which this PR would make unnecessary.This PR fixes the problem by factoring out the
func.prototype
-tolerant property deletion into a separatecauterizeProperty
function which it calls from both places. This PR also adds the test that was missing from #1221 , having first checked that the test detects #2598 when run without the rest of this PR.If this PR gets merged before #2563, then #2563's workaround for #2598 can first be removed before it is merged.
cauterizeProperty
. @kriskowal , please advise how intrinsics.js should arrange to do so.Security Considerations
Allowing a
func.prototype
property that really shouldn't be there seems safe, so long as it is safely set toundefined
first, which this PR does, and then checks that it has done so.Scaling Considerations
none
Documentation Considerations
generally, this would be one less thing to worry about, and thus one less thing that needs to be documented for most users.
Testing Considerations
Adds the test that was missing from #1221 that let #2598 go unnoticed until #2563
Compatibility Considerations
Should be none.
Upgrade Considerations
Should be none.