On Jan 16, 2013, at 4:03 PM, Brandon Benvie wrote: > That's exactly how I was thinking of it. @@hasInstance and @@create live on > Function.prototype so the only protection a sandbox has from letting any and > all comers muck with them is in them not being reflected. > > Overriding Function.prototype.@@create (and the custom ones e.g. > Boolean.@@create) would allow you to touch every single object that is > created before any other code as access to it. Overriding > Function.prototype.@@hasInstance would give you access to every object used > on the LHS of instanceof and every function on the RHS of instanceof (`this` > inside @@hasInstance). These seem like things that SES would absolutely want > access prevented to. The default functionality itself may be mundane, but the > exposure of the operands is itself the power those functions have.
For this reason, I've been specifying all of the @@create methods for standard built-ins as non-writable, non-configurable, just like the "prototype" property has always been specified. The rationale, is that just like "prototype" the integrity of @@create is essential to any function that needs to define it. In this light, it may also make sense to make Function.prototype.@@ and Function.prototype.@@hasInstance non-writable, non-configurable. Regardless of the defaults, SES could presumably defend itself in the same same way. I don't see any real need to restrict access to all predefined @@create methods. If you invoke it directly (or copy it to another object) about the worse you can do is make an initialized Boolean (in this example) instance which if throw if any of the Boolean methods are applied to it. If you use it to create such an instance and then manually apply the Boolean constructor to initialize it you getting that is basically equivalent to (new Boolean).__proto__ = whatever. It isn't clear that the object you would get is dangerous or anymore so that you would get if you evaluated: new (class extends Boolean) Allen > > > On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 6:53 PM, Allen Wirfs-Brock <[email protected]> > wrote: > > On Jan 16, 2013, at 3:20 PM, Brandon Benvie wrote: > > > It's worth noting that private Symbols *are* used by the ES6 spec to solve > > a number of other problems currently. They are used to provide easy to use > > hooks for overriding builtin functionality: @@hasInstance, @@create, > > @@toStringTag, @@iterator, and @@ToPrimitive. Some of these (@@toStringTag, > > @@iterator) likely make sense as unique symbols, but the others protect > > access to powerful capabilities that should likely be protected. Without > > private symbols, it would be difficult to expose these APIs in the easily > > hookable manner they are provided now. Using prototypal inheritance along > > with private symbols to protect access is exactly how these hooks are made > > easy to use. > > > > > Let's refer to all of these built-in @@symbols as language extensions points. > > Upon my first reading of the above, I wasn't sure I agreed with Brandon. > After all, language extension point symbols all need to be publicly available > (presumably via module imports) if certain forms of extended abstractions > are going to be defined by ES code. From that perspective regular > non-private Symbols should be fine for representing language extension > points. (BTW, note I avoid saying "unique symbol" as that isn't current part > of the ES6 vocabulary. We have Symbols, some of which are private. But all > of them (including private Symbols) are unique values.) > > However, here is why it might make sense to make some of language extension > points private: If you are creating a sandboxed environment where you would > like to limit the availability of some of the language extension points and > hence the ability to define new abstractions with the extended functionality. > A sandbox's module loader can presumably restrict access to the modules > that would export some or all of the language extension points. However, if > the language extension points are represented using regular, non-private > Symbols then it still might be possible to discover the language extension > points via reflection and then use them to circumvent the sandbox > restrictions. If they are represented as private Symbols this would not be > possible. > > So that is a theoretical reason why we might want language extension points > to be private Symbols. But, in practice, it isn't clear to me why you would > want to sandbox any of the currently identified language extension points in > this manner. They all have utility in defining application level > abstractions. That's why they're there. If you take them away you have a > less powerful language. It also isn't clear what potential hard is exposed > by them. > > Does anyone have particular language extension points that they think need to > be restricted in this manner? > > Allen > > > > > > >
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
