-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 31.4k
http2: refactor to avoid unsafe array iteration #36700
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
Merged
Merged
Changes from all commits
Commits
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
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
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
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
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.
Isn't this also "vulnerable" to prototype pollution "attacks," if we really want to consider that "unsafe?" I mean, one could define a getter on the
Array.prototype
that returns something "malicious."I'm really not sure if all this complexity and illegibility are worth the minimal benefit.
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.
Defining a
0
property on theArray.prototype
would have effect only on empty arrays, right?args
here is created by the spread operator, so I think this code would actually be safe even in case ofArray.prototype
pollution.I don't think we are concerned about code being "malicious" anyway, what we are trying to achieve with the move to primordials is to allow users to monkey-patch the built-in objects (for debugging purposes, for tinkering, etc.) without having errors thrown by Node.js internals.
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.
Might be, I am not sure.
I understand the motivation, but I am not sure it's worth the cost to maintainability, readability etc.
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.
To address the maintainability concern, would you prefer if we added a linter rule to forbid array destructuring assignment?