Re: [Python-Dev] another dict crasher
"Tim Peters" <tim.one@home.com> writes:
The dict code has even more holes and in more places, but they're generally much harder to provoke, so they've gone unnoticed for 10 years. All in all, seemed like a good tradeoff to me <wink>.
Are you suggesting that we should just leave these crashers in? They're not *particularly* hard to provoke if you know the implementation - and I was inspired to look for them by someone's report of actually running into one. Cheers, M. -- Java sucks. [...] Java on TV set top boxes will suck so hard it might well inhale people from off their sofa until their heads get wedged in the card slots. --- Jon Rabone, ucam.chat
[Michael Hudson]
Are you suggesting that we should just leave these crashers in? They're not *particularly* hard to provoke if you know the implementation - and I was inspired to look for them by someone's report of actually running into one.
I certainly don't object to fixing ones that bite innocent users, but there are also costs of several kinds. In this case, I couldn't care less how long printing a dict takes -- go for it. When adversarial abuse starts interfering with the speed of crucial operations, though, I'm simply not a "safety at any cost" person. Guido is much more of one, although the number of holes remaining in Python could plausibly fill Albert Hall <wink>. short-of-50-easy-ways-to-crash-win98-just-think-hard-about-each-"+"-in- the-code-base-ly y'rs - tim
participants (2)
-
Michael Hudson -
Tim Peters