home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- from test_support import verbose, TESTFN
- import random
- import os
-
- # From SF bug #422121: Insecurities in dict comparison.
-
- # Safety of code doing comparisons has been an historical Python weak spot.
- # The problem is that comparison of structures written in C *naturally*
- # wants to hold on to things like the size of the container, or "the
- # biggest" containee so far, across a traversal of the container; but
- # code to do containee comparisons can call back into Python and mutate
- # the container in arbitrary ways while the C loop is in midstream. If the
- # C code isn't extremely paranoid about digging things out of memory on
- # each trip, and artificially boosting refcounts for the duration, anything
- # from infinite loops to OS crashes can result (yes, I use Windows <wink>).
- #
- # The other problem is that code designed to provoke a weakness is usually
- # white-box code, and so catches only the particular vulnerabilities the
- # author knew to protect against. For example, Python's list.sort() code
- # went thru many iterations as one "new" vulnerability after another was
- # discovered.
- #
- # So the dict comparison test here uses a black-box approach instead,
- # generating dicts of various sizes at random, and performing random
- # mutations on them at random times. This proved very effective,
- # triggering at least six distinct failure modes the first 20 times I
- # ran it. Indeed, at the start, the driver never got beyond 6 iterations
- # before the test died.
-
- # The dicts are global to make it easy to mutate tham from within functions.
- dict1 = {}
- dict2 = {}
-
- # The current set of keys in dict1 and dict2. These are materialized as
- # lists to make it easy to pick a dict key at random.
- dict1keys = []
- dict2keys = []
-
- # Global flag telling maybe_mutate() wether to *consider* mutating.
- mutate = 0
-
- # If global mutate is true, consider mutating a dict. May or may not
- # mutate a dict even if mutate is true. If it does decide to mutate a
- # dict, it picks one of {dict1, dict2} at random, and deletes a random
- # entry from it; or, more rarely, adds a random element.
-
- def maybe_mutate():
- global mutate
- if not mutate:
- return
- if random.random() < 0.5:
- return
-
- if random.random() < 0.5:
- target, keys = dict1, dict1keys
- else:
- target, keys = dict2, dict2keys
-
- if random.random() < 0.2:
- # Insert a new key.
- mutate = 0 # disable mutation until key inserted
- while 1:
- newkey = Horrid(random.randrange(100))
- if newkey not in target:
- break
- target[newkey] = Horrid(random.randrange(100))
- keys.append(newkey)
- mutate = 1
-
- elif keys:
- # Delete a key at random.
- i = random.randrange(len(keys))
- key = keys[i]
- del target[key]
- # CAUTION: don't use keys.remove(key) here. Or do <wink>. The
- # point is that .remove() would trigger more comparisons, and so
- # also more calls to this routine. We're mutating often enough
- # without that.
- del keys[i]
-
- # A horrid class that triggers random mutations of dict1 and dict2 when
- # instances are compared.
-
- class Horrid:
- def __init__(self, i):
- # Comparison outcomes are determined by the value of i.
- self.i = i
-
- # An artificial hashcode is selected at random so that we don't
- # have any systematic relationship between comparison outcomes
- # (based on self.i and other.i) and relative position within the
- # hash vector (based on hashcode).
- self.hashcode = random.randrange(1000000000)
-
- def __hash__(self):
- return self.hashcode
-
- def __cmp__(self, other):
- maybe_mutate() # The point of the test.
- return cmp(self.i, other.i)
-
- def __repr__(self):
- return "Horrid(%d)" % self.i
-
- # Fill dict d with numentries (Horrid(i), Horrid(j)) key-value pairs,
- # where i and j are selected at random from the candidates list.
- # Return d.keys() after filling.
-
- def fill_dict(d, candidates, numentries):
- d.clear()
- for i in xrange(numentries):
- d[Horrid(random.choice(candidates))] = \
- Horrid(random.choice(candidates))
- return d.keys()
-
- # Test one pair of randomly generated dicts, each with n entries.
- # Note that dict comparison is trivial if they don't have the same number
- # of entires (then the "shorter" dict is instantly considered to be the
- # smaller one, without even looking at the entries).
-
- def test_one(n):
- global mutate, dict1, dict2, dict1keys, dict2keys
-
- # Fill the dicts without mutating them.
- mutate = 0
- dict1keys = fill_dict(dict1, range(n), n)
- dict2keys = fill_dict(dict2, range(n), n)
-
- # Enable mutation, then compare the dicts so long as they have the
- # same size.
- mutate = 1
- if verbose:
- print "trying w/ lengths", len(dict1), len(dict2),
- while dict1 and len(dict1) == len(dict2):
- if verbose:
- print ".",
- c = cmp(dict1, dict2)
- if verbose:
- print
-
- # Run test_one n times. At the start (before the bugs were fixed), 20
- # consecutive runs of this test each blew up on or before the sixth time
- # test_one was run. So n doesn't have to be large to get an interesting
- # test.
- # OTOH, calling with large n is also interesting, to ensure that the fixed
- # code doesn't hold on to refcounts *too* long (in which case memory would
- # leak).
-
- def test(n):
- for i in xrange(n):
- test_one(random.randrange(1, 100))
-
- # See last comment block for clues about good values for n.
- test(100)
-
- ##########################################################################
- # Another segfault bug, distilled by Michael Hudson from a c.l.py post.
-
- class Child:
- def __init__(self, parent):
- self.__dict__['parent'] = parent
- def __getattr__(self, attr):
- self.parent.a = 1
- self.parent.b = 1
- self.parent.c = 1
- self.parent.d = 1
- self.parent.e = 1
- self.parent.f = 1
- self.parent.g = 1
- self.parent.h = 1
- self.parent.i = 1
- return getattr(self.parent, attr)
-
- class Parent:
- def __init__(self):
- self.a = Child(self)
-
- # Hard to say what this will print! May vary from time to time. But
- # we're specifically trying to test the tp_print slot here, and this is
- # the clearest way to do it. We print the result to a temp file so that
- # the expected-output file doesn't need to change.
-
- f = open(TESTFN, "w")
- print >> f, Parent().__dict__
- f.close()
- os.unlink(TESTFN)
-
- ##########################################################################
- # And another core-dumper from Michael Hudson.
-
- dict = {}
-
- # Force dict to malloc its table.
- for i in range(1, 10):
- dict[i] = i
-
- f = open(TESTFN, "w")
-
- class Machiavelli:
- def __repr__(self):
- dict.clear()
-
- # Michael sez: "doesn't crash without this. don't know why."
- # Tim sez: "luck of the draw; crashes with or without for me."
- print >> f
-
- return `"machiavelli"`
-
- def __hash__(self):
- return 0
-
- dict[Machiavelli()] = Machiavelli()
-
- print >> f, str(dict)
- f.close()
- os.unlink(TESTFN)
- del f, dict
-
-
- ##########################################################################
- # And another core-dumper from Michael Hudson.
-
- dict = {}
-
- # let's force dict to malloc its table
- for i in range(1, 10):
- dict[i] = i
-
- class Machiavelli2:
- def __eq__(self, other):
- dict.clear()
- return 1
-
- def __hash__(self):
- return 0
-
- dict[Machiavelli2()] = Machiavelli2()
-
- try:
- dict[Machiavelli2()]
- except KeyError:
- pass
-
- del dict
-
- ##########################################################################
- # And another core-dumper from Michael Hudson.
-
- dict = {}
-
- # let's force dict to malloc its table
- for i in range(1, 10):
- dict[i] = i
-
- class Machiavelli3:
- def __init__(self, id):
- self.id = id
-
- def __eq__(self, other):
- if self.id == other.id:
- dict.clear()
- return 1
- else:
- return 0
-
- def __repr__(self):
- return "%s(%s)"%(self.__class__.__name__, self.id)
-
- def __hash__(self):
- return 0
-
- dict[Machiavelli3(1)] = Machiavelli3(0)
- dict[Machiavelli3(2)] = Machiavelli3(0)
-
- f = open(TESTFN, "w")
- try:
- try:
- print >> f, dict[Machiavelli3(2)]
- except KeyError:
- pass
- finally:
- f.close()
- os.unlink(TESTFN)
-
- del dict
-