-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 29.7k
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
lib: guard inspector console using process var #15008
Closed
Closed
Changes from all commits
Commits
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
---|---|---|
@@ -0,0 +1,5 @@ | ||
'use strict' | ||
const common = require('../common'); | ||
common.skipIfInspectorDisabled(); | ||
|
||
process.config = {}; |
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
---|---|---|
@@ -0,0 +1,41 @@ | ||
// Flags: --require ./test/fixtures/overwrite-config-preload-module.js | ||
'use strict'; | ||
|
||
// This test ensures that overwriting a process configuration | ||
// value does not affect code in bootstrap_node.js. Specifically this tests | ||
// that the inspector console functions are bound even though | ||
// overwrite-config-preload-module.js overwrote the process.config variable. | ||
|
||
// We cannot do a check for the inspector because the configuration variables | ||
// were reset/removed by overwrite-config-preload-module.js. | ||
/* eslint-disable inspector-check */ | ||
|
||
const common = require('../common'); | ||
const assert = require('assert'); | ||
const inspector = require('inspector'); | ||
const msg = 'Test inspector logging'; | ||
let asserted = false; | ||
|
||
async function testConsoleLog() { | ||
const session = new inspector.Session(); | ||
session.connect(); | ||
session.on('inspectorNotification', (data) => { | ||
if (data.method === 'Runtime.consoleAPICalled') { | ||
assert.strictEqual(data.params.args.length, 1); | ||
assert.strictEqual(data.params.args[0].value, msg); | ||
asserted = true; | ||
} | ||
}); | ||
session.post('Runtime.enable'); | ||
console.log(msg); | ||
session.disconnect(); | ||
} | ||
|
||
common.crashOnUnhandledRejection(); | ||
|
||
async function runTests() { | ||
await testConsoleLog(); | ||
assert.ok(asserted, 'log statement did not reach the inspector'); | ||
} | ||
|
||
runTests(); |
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
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.
Depending on
process.config
is dangerous because there are userland modules that completely replace it. During bootstrap it should be safe but problems still could come up.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.
If it ever becomes an issue, we could cache it before user code runs.
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.
Or use
process.binding('config')
as a stable alternative.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.
@jasnell @cjihrig Thanks, I had not thought about that being an issue and I'm trying to understand how this might happen.
Using
process.binding('config')
will give access to the builtin moduleconfig
, but as far as I can tell the information from config.gypi is provided as a native module (via node_js2c). The process object is then configured with that information in setupConfig which is called by node_bootstrap.js start function.setupConfig
deletes the config from the _source and then sets these properties on the process object. Since it deletes the _source this function cannot be called multiple times, for example if it did not we could have done the same thing again.What I'm having some difficulties understand is that how could a userland module be able to replace this at this stage. Would someone be able to shed some light on this?
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.
Userland code might not be able to replace
process.config
by this stage, I haven't tested it. What I do know is that we've had issues depending onprocess.config
in later stages elsewhere in the code and we if we are going to use it here then we need to be certain that it won't be a problem. If there is no userland code that can be run before bootstrap gets to this point, then it should be ok.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 still very early in the bootstrap process and I do not think it is possible to change it at that stage. To be on the safe side we could just add a test for it though.
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.
@jasnell @BridgeAR Sounds good, I'll add a test for this. Thanks