Feb 2, 2008 7:34 PM, Christian Heimes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Brett Cannon wrote:
> > It would be really cool if you can recruit some experienced Windows
> > developers. :]
> That's the point in all of this. =)
> -Brett
I'll be around for the sprints -- didn't really have a plan as to what
Hello there.
in function_call() in funcobject.c, we have this comment:
/* XXX This is broken if the caller deletes dict items! */
Now, I wonder what specifically is meant here? are we really talking about
the 'callee' here?
In PyEval_EvalCodeEx() it looks as though all keywords are always INC
I think we really *are* talking about the caller -- the caller owns
the dict, if it managed to delete something from the dict before the
callee can incref it, you'd have trouble. I don't immediately see how
this could happen, which is probably why I left it as an XXX
comment...
--Guido
On Feb 5,
Guido van Rossum wrote:
> I think we really *are* talking about the caller -- the caller owns
> the dict, if it managed to delete something from the dict before the
> callee can incref it, you'd have trouble. I don't immediately see how
> this could happen, which is probably why I left it as an XXX
On Feb 5, 2008 2:07 PM, Amaury Forgeot d'Arc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Guido van Rossum wrote:
> > I think we really *are* talking about the caller -- the caller owns
> > the dict, if it managed to delete something from the dict before the
> > callee can incref it, you'd have trouble. I don't im
Guido van Rossum wrote:
> Thanks Amaury! Do you think it would be sufficient to change the
> PyString_Check() call in PyEval_EvalCodeEx into a
> PyString_CheckExact() call?
This would prevent this "attack", but would remain fragile - future
developments could allow execution of python code somewhe
On Feb 5, 2008 4:02 PM, Amaury Forgeot d'Arc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Guido van Rossum wrote:
> > Thanks Amaury! Do you think it would be sufficient to change the
> > PyString_Check() call in PyEval_EvalCodeEx into a
> > PyString_CheckExact() call?
>
> This would prevent this "attack", but woul
