On Fri, Jan 6, 2012 at 6:56 PM, Mark S. Miller <erig...@google.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, Jan 6, 2012 at 9:27 AM, Andrea Giammarchi <
> andrea.giammar...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> that whole variable can be redefined or used as communication channel ...
>> I really don't understand what is the problem.
>
>
> The variable "Object"? No, in SES that's unassignable. As layered on ES5,
> we enforce that simply by making globalObject.Object a non-writable
> non-configurable data property.
>
>
I was rather talking about your WeakMap
>
>
>>
>> The returned bound once object could be frozen without problems but if
>> the function is private with the gist I have posted:
>>
>
>
> Essentially yes. The returned bound object would have to be transitively
> immutable, but in this case freeze may be enough. Of course, this can't be
> a fix to "bind" since that would break bind's current behavior. But if it
> were a new API as you suggest, that would no longer violate any principles,
> I believe.
>
>
new API and frozen would just work for me
> Separately, I do not believe the need for this is adequate to justify
> adding a new API. But that's a completely different topic.
>
>
>
>>
>> 1. you cannot redefine Object.prototype at all
>> 2. you cannot access single bound function/object from any other place
>>
>> If I have my own scope I want to do what's needed, this does not mean the
>> problem does not exist, isn't it?
>>
>> In your case you have, as example, different problems with that WeakMap
>>
>> 1. everyone can WeakMap = function () {}; anywhere
>>
>
> Again, no they can't because all whitelisted global variables are
> unassignable.
>
>
it's a var WeakMap in the global scope ... still talking about your shim,
probably I am missing some dependency?
>
>
>> 2. if already defined, the definition of Object getOwnPropertyDescriptor
>> to avoid access to that "protected" variable will fail and throw an error
>> ... isn't it? That does not look safe either
>> 3. as you wrote, Proxy easily discover that secret
>> 4. your implementation has same problem I am talking about ... trapped
>> "protected/private" stuff others should not see
>>
>> Same stuff with my problem except even proxy won't be able to retrieve
>> that bound function since no property is attached.
>>
>> I can't hardly believe you are so worried about an edge case and you
>> don't see the pachyderm we are all dealing with ... properties attached and
>> accessible "from everyone" ... this is for you safe?
>>
>> Is obj.bound = obj.method.bind(obj) a better approach than the one I am
>> suggesting ?
>>
>> I am sorry but I don't think so.
>>
>
> I don't think the benefits you explain are worth the cost of a new API.
> But that's separate from the security issue.
>
Fair enough, so dead line it is.
br,
andrea
>
>
>
>>
>> Best Regards
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Jan 6, 2012 at 6:03 PM, Mark S. Miller <erig...@google.com>wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, Jan 6, 2012 at 1:50 AM, David Bruant <bruan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Le 06/01/2012 10:40, Andrea Giammarchi a écrit :
>>>>
>>>> if WeakMaps are so smart ... it means we cannot shim them without
>>>> causing leaks in non WeakMap ready browsers since no magic will
>>>> happen,objects as keys will simply be persistent in the WeakMap private
>>>> scope
>>>>
>>>> Indeed. Also, Mark Miller mentionned a couple of times that the SES
>>>> polyfill [1] leaks less than one could expect. I haven't taken the time to
>>>> look into that but it's probably worth mentionning.
>>>>
>>>
>>> And it's probably worth looking into ;)
>>>
>>>
>>>> [1]
>>>> http://code.google.com/p/es-lab/source/browse/trunk/src/ses/WeakMap.js
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> --
>>> Cheers,
>>> --MarkM
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Cheers,
> --MarkM
>
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
