-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 4.6k
Bump jsonpickle upper bound. #38769
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
Open
claudevdm
wants to merge
2
commits into
apache:master
Choose a base branch
from
claudevdm:jsonpick-ver
base: master
Could not load branches
Branch not found: {{ refName }}
Loading
Could not load tags
Nothing to show
Loading
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Some commits from the old base branch may be removed from the timeline,
and old review comments may become outdated.
+56
−2
Open
Bump jsonpickle upper bound. #38769
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
2 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
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 hidden or 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 hidden or 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 hidden or 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
Oops, something went wrong.
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.
Is there actually a downside to always setting safe=False? IIUC, this is protecting against remote code execution exploits that allow escalating privileges. But if you are able to compromise this artifact file, I think you already functionally have code execution privileges since it allows you to define (semi) arbitrary transforms.
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.
The default in v 4+ is safe=True, so I think it is best if we align with the default behavior in the underlying library?
Is the benefit of always setting to False simplicity? I don't have a strong opinion here.
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.
I also think it is reasonable to just skip compat flag completely. I doubt it will break anyone, and if it does they can file a bug and we can add a compat flag in an upcoming beam version?
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.
Yeah - IMO this is either a vulnerability which we should unconditionally patch, or it is not and we can retain a single behavior.
I agree with this. I actually also realized that the compat flag doesn't work here anyways - these artifacts persist across (usually batch) pipeline runs, so it isn't coming from an update, its coming from a subsequent pipeline run.
My slight preference would be
safe=False, but I'm good with either approach as long as we skip the compat flag piece and will defer to you here.