fix(ses): fix #2598 with cauterizeProperty reuse#2624
Merged
Conversation
578772d to
fd0660f
Compare
erights
commented
Nov 4, 2024
gibson042
reviewed
Nov 5, 2024
3477f75 to
7beacaa
Compare
mhofman
reviewed
Nov 5, 2024
7beacaa to
e74d031
Compare
fac3fae to
6b9c271
Compare
kriskowal
approved these changes
Nov 12, 2024
kriskowal
left a comment
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment.
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.
27 tasks
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
6 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Closes: #2598
Refs: #2563 #2334 #1221
Description
#1221 was supposed to make ses tolerate undeletable
func.prototypeproperties that should be absent, so long as they could be set toundefinedinstead, 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.prototypeon 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 separatecauterizePropertyfunction 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.prototypeproperty that really shouldn't be there seems safe, so long as it is safely set toundefinedfirst, 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.