Re: [caplet] Code that lexes differently in ES3 vs ES3.1
- On Feb 10, 2009, at 6:34 AM, David-Sarah Hopwood wrote:
> Brendan Eich wrote:You're right, but so what? The IE bug and monopoly combined to create
> > On Feb 9, 2009, at 9:42 AM, Marcel Laverdet wrote:
> >> From what I remember this started out as a bug in IE and then
> >> Firefox followed suit for compatibility which left the other
> >> browsers with no choice.
> > No, other browsers followed suit first.
> >> I can't find the original bug but `/[/]/` only started parsing in
> >> FF1.5, in FF1.0 it would throw a syntax error.
> > https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=309840
> # This fixes a highly dup'ed IE compatibility bug. It's an extension
> # to ECMA syntax that's allowed by Section 16. I'm approving it so
> # that we can get it into 1.8b5 / Firefox 1.5b2.
> As the example in my first post demonstrated, it is absolutely not
> correct that this was an allowed Section 16 extension.
a de-facto standard. Appealing to the de-jure standard does you no
good, and correcting my 2005-ear misunderstanding (you've corrected it
more recently in es-discuss) does not change the de-facto standard
trumping the de-jure one.
> In fact this just makes me even more worried: it seems that Section 16This has nothing to do with Section 16 or my former misunderstanding
> is being misinterpreted in a way that prevents independently developed
> parsers, implemented strictly from the spec, from being able to
> match the
> parsing behaviour of browsers on syntactically valid ES3 code. Is this
> just a one-off mistake, or is Section 16 consistently being
> too loosely?
of it, and everything to do with IE forcing a de-facto standard. As
far as I know, no one at Microsoft added the bug allowing unescaped /
in a character class by arguing based on a misinterpretation of
Section 16. I think you are barking up the wrong tree.
> David-Sarah Hopwood ⚥
- 2009/2/10 David-Sarah Hopwood <david.hopwood@...>:
> Marcel Laverdet wrote:Plenty. But I suspect you know of them. There's conditional
>> From what I remember this started out as a bug in IE and then Firefox
>> followed suit for compatibility which left the other browsers with no
>> choice. I can't find the original bug but `/[/]/` only started parsing
>> in FF1.5, in FF1.0 it would throw a syntax error.
>> You could throw out any malformed regexp literals (any that differ
>> between ES3 \ ES3.1) which is a fairly small subset and you would be ok.
> I could, if I knew that there were no more bugs like this. Note that
> lexical confusion attacks of this kind can easily be turned into complete
> breaks of a subset implementation:
> [ /[/]/ /alert('toast')]/ + 1
> Verifier sees valid, harmless code:
> [ new RegExp("[") ] / new RegExp("alert('toast')]") + 1
> Browser runs exploit code:
> [ new RegExp("[\/]") / alert('toast') ] / +1
> Since there's no way that I could reliably have known about the IE lexer
> bug, it's just too risky.
> Anyone know of other bugs where common JS implementations lex or parse
> valid ES3 code with a different meaning than specified? (The only one
> I can think of right now is \v in IE, but at least that doesn't result
> in a parse with a different structure.)
compilation comments /* @cc_on */,
and there's the newlines in block comments thing return /*
and there's format control characters between pairs like */ and \".
There's other tricks you can do with \u escapes in identifiers and NUL
and BOM characters in source.
> David-Sarah Hopwood ⚥
- On Feb 10, 2009, at 6:36 PM, Mike Samuel wrote:
> and there's the newlines in block comments thing return /*Fixed in Firefox 3.1 beta nightlies:
> */ foo();
We could push the fix back into a 3.0.x maintenance release if it
would help. Anyone with https://bugzilla.mozilla.org editbugs
permission who wants this, feel free to nominate the patch for approval.