On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 7:58 AM, Ferenc Kovacs <tyr...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 6:20 PM, Julien Pauli <jpa...@php.net> wrote: >> >> On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 2:04 PM, Ferenc Kovacs <tyr...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > >> > >> > >> > On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 1:48 PM, Nikita Popov <nikita....@gmail.com> >> > wrote: >> >> >> >> On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 12:27 PM, Ferenc Kovacs <tyr...@gmail.com> >> >> wrote: >> >>> >> >>> sorry for the late reply. >> >>> you are right and after looking into the implementation I think >> >>> classes >> >>> having custom object storage (eg. create_object) shouldn't assume that >> >>> their __construct will be called, but either do the initialization in >> >>> the >> >>> create_object hook or validate in the other methods that the object >> >>> was >> >>> properly initialized. >> >>> given that this lack of initialization problem is already present(you >> >>> can >> >>> extend such a class and have a __construct() in the subclass which >> >>> doesn't >> >>> call the parent constructor), and we want to keep the unserialize >> >>> trick >> >>> fixed (as that exposes this problems to the remote attacker when some >> >>> code >> >>> accepts arbitrary serialized data from the client) I see no reason to >> >>> keep >> >>> the limitation in the ReflectionClass::newInstanceWithoutConstructor() >> >>> and >> >>> allowing the instantiation of internal classes will provide a clean >> >>> upgrade >> >>> path to doctrine and co. >> >>> ofc. we have to fix the internal classes misusing the constructor for >> >>> proper initialization one by one, but that can happen after the >> >>> initial >> >>> 5.6.0 release (ofc it would be wonderful if people could lend me a >> >>> hand >> >>> for >> >>> fixing as much as we can before the release), but we have to fix those >> >>> anyways. >> >> >> >> >> >> This sounds reasonable to me. newInstanceWithoutConstructor does not >> >> have >> >> the same remote exploitation concerns as serialize, so allowing crashes >> >> here >> >> that can also be caused by other means seems okay to me (especially if >> >> we're >> >> planning to fix them lateron). Only additional restriction I'd add is >> >> to >> >> disallow calling it on an internal + final class. For those the >> >> __construct >> >> argument does not apply. For them the entity-extending-internal-class >> >> usecase doesn't apply either, so that shouldn't be a problem. >> >> >> >> Nikita >> >> >> > >> > Thanks for the prompt reply! >> > I was considering mentioning the final constructors, but as we >> > previously >> > didn't checked that and from a quick look it seems that we are mostly >> > using >> > it as an easy/cheap way to make sure that the object is initialized >> > properly >> > (which could also happen when a subclass calls parent::__construct() >> > from >> > it's constructor) which isn't exactly the best usecase for final. >> > But I don't really mind having that check. >> >> I'm +1 also with the idea. >> >> Just take care to have a clone_handler defined as well, as the default >> clone handler doesn't call create_object. >> http://lxr.php.net/xref/PHP_5_5/Zend/zend_objects.c#218 >> >> Julien > > > thanks, I will keep that in mind when we start moving the initialization > from the constructors into the create_object functions. > I've also went ahead and created a pull request for the proposed changes: > https://github.com/php/php-src/pull/733 > as you can see I've taken Nikita's advice and internal classes with final > constructors are still not allowed to be instantiated.
When should we start patching those ? I guess asap ? Julien -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
