Re: [Python-Dev] another dict crasher
"Tim Peters"
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