-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 75
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Add a simple Module System for "include" #2050
Changes from all commits
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
---|---|---|
@@ -1,5 +1,6 @@ | ||
package org.phoenicis.scripts.engine.injectors; | ||
|
||
import org.graalvm.polyglot.Value; | ||
import org.phoenicis.scripts.engine.implementation.PhoenicisScriptEngine; | ||
import org.phoenicis.scripts.interpreter.ScriptException; | ||
import org.phoenicis.scripts.interpreter.ScriptFetcher; | ||
|
@@ -30,9 +31,22 @@ public void injectInto(PhoenicisScriptEngine phoenicisScriptEngine) { | |
throwException(new ScriptException("Script '" + argument + "' is not found")); | ||
} | ||
|
||
includedScripts.put(argument, | ||
phoenicisScriptEngine.evalAndReturn("//# sourceURL=" + argument + "\n" + script, | ||
this::throwException)); | ||
// wrap the loaded script in a function to prevent it from influencing the main script | ||
String extendedString = String.format("(module) => { %s }", script); | ||
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Can we do something here to prevent module escaping? There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. I believe by module escaping you mean to prevent an included script to make modifications to the state/context/variables of including script? If this is what you mean then I don't think we can prevent module escaping for two reasons:
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Let’s imagine that script = “}; malicious code //“ There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. It's something we should consider but I guess it will blow up the PR too much. There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I guess it depends on what If the malicious code is trying to affect the main script (i.e. the including script) I don't think it is a big danger, because as far as I know it is only able to affect existing global variables. A part of the remaining danger should be solvable by executing the included script in a custom context (this is currently blocked by oracle/graal#631). If the malicious code wants to access parts of the Java API I think we can be protected by your approach in #2018. Apart from that I agree with @plata, I think that we should create a new issue to continue this discussion, because it seems to be a bit over the top for this PR. |
||
Value includeFunction = (Value) phoenicisScriptEngine.evalAndReturn(extendedString, | ||
this::throwException); | ||
|
||
// create an empty JS object | ||
Value module = (Value) phoenicisScriptEngine.evalAndReturn("({})", this::throwException); | ||
|
||
// execute the included function -> populates "module" | ||
includeFunction.execute(module); | ||
|
||
if (module.hasMember("default")) { | ||
includedScripts.put(argument, module.getMember("default")); | ||
} else { | ||
includedScripts.put(argument, module); | ||
} | ||
} | ||
|
||
return includedScripts.get(argument); | ||
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Not really related to this PR but: do we have the engine ID in the places where currently "wine" is hard coded?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This is a good point. Sadly no, we don't seem to have the engine id at hand here. I think we will need to add it to the
ShortcutDTO
class to have it available.What do you think?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Seems reasonable. Can you describe the idea in an issue?