David Bruant wrote:
[Cc'ing Tom and Mark to be sure there is agreement on what I'm
claiming in this message]
Le 10/01/2013 22:10, Brendan Eich a écrit :
Nathan Wall wrote:
Brendan Eich:
No, not if the symbol is not in the whitelist. Zero information
leak is
required.
That's good news too. Objection withdrawn.
Maybe I gave up too easy :). Is the `unknownPrivateSymbol` trap
called? What's the rationale for this trap?
I just wrote that the trap is not even called if the symbol is not in
the whitelist passed in when the proxy is created.
No, the unknownPrivateSymbol trap is called when the symbol is not in
the whitelist, so, as Nathan fears, a malicious proxy could throw and
cancel the access to the private property.
Of course, and my description was for a "knownPrivateSymbol" trap! Shows
how much I know :-P. Waiting to hear from Tom on this. Thanks to Nathan
for being a squeaky wheel.
I think the return true/false protocol should be replaced by a
return/throw protocol (return value is ignored). It'd be much more
explicit this way.
Agreed.
/be
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
