[issue17190] _FAST opcodes do no range checking

2013-02-12 Thread Larry Hastings
Larry Hastings added the comment: I'm not surprised it was discussed to death long ago. And I can get behind wontfix. But let me just say that a) I think an uncrashable Python interpreter is a laudable goal, and steps we can take towards that should not be dismissed out of hand. b) I doubt

[issue17190] _FAST opcodes do no range checking

2013-02-11 Thread Larry Hastings
New submission from Larry Hastings: The implementations for LOAD_FAST, STORE_FAST, and DELETE_FAST don't check that the index is = the size of fastlocals. So it's a snap to crash the interpreter with hand-written bytecode, by going past the end of the fastlocals array. Kaboom! Attached is

[issue17190] _FAST opcodes do no range checking

2013-02-11 Thread Raymond Hettinger
Raymond Hettinger added the comment: It could be that this is not an interesting bug, that policy suggests that anyone who can write their own bytecode is a Consenting Adult. Yes, that is correct on all counts. Sorry, this is an *ancient* discussion, long ago put to bed. Besides, did you