📄 test_mutants.py
字号:
from test_support import verbose, TESTFNimport randomimport os# From SF bug #422121: Insecurities in dict comparison.# Safety of code doing comparisons has been an historical Python weak spot.# The problem is that comparison of structures written in C *naturally*# wants to hold on to things like the size of the container, or "the# biggest" containee so far, across a traversal of the container; but# code to do containee comparisons can call back into Python and mutate# the container in arbitrary ways while the C loop is in midstream. If the# C code isn't extremely paranoid about digging things out of memory on# each trip, and artificially boosting refcounts for the duration, anything# from infinite loops to OS crashes can result (yes, I use Windows <wink>).## The other problem is that code designed to provoke a weakness is usually# white-box code, and so catches only the particular vulnerabilities the# author knew to protect against. For example, Python's list.sort() code# went thru many iterations as one "new" vulnerability after another was# discovered.## So the dict comparison test here uses a black-box approach instead,# generating dicts of various sizes at random, and performing random# mutations on them at random times. This proved very effective,# triggering at least six distinct failure modes the first 20 times I# ran it. Indeed, at the start, the driver never got beyond 6 iterations# before the test died.# The dicts are global to make it easy to mutate tham from within functions.dict1 = {}dict2 = {}# The current set of keys in dict1 and dict2. These are materialized as# lists to make it easy to pick a dict key at random.dict1keys = []dict2keys = []# Global flag telling maybe_mutate() wether to *consider* mutating.mutate = 0# If global mutate is true, consider mutating a dict. May or may not# mutate a dict even if mutate is true. If it does decide to mutate a# dict, it picks one of {dict1, dict2} at random, and deletes a random# entry from it; or, more rarely, adds a random element.def maybe_mutate(): global mutate if not mutate: return if random.random() < 0.5: return if random.random() < 0.5: target, keys = dict1, dict1keys else: target, keys = dict2, dict2keys if random.random() < 0.2: # Insert a new key. mutate = 0 # disable mutation until key inserted while 1: newkey = Horrid(random.randrange(100)) if newkey not in target: break target[newkey] = Horrid(random.randrange(100)) keys.append(newkey) mutate = 1 elif keys: # Delete a key at random. i = random.randrange(len(keys)) key = keys[i] del target[key] # CAUTION: don't use keys.remove(key) here. Or do <wink>. The # point is that .remove() would trigger more comparisons, and so # also more calls to this routine. We're mutating often enough # without that. del keys[i]# A horrid class that triggers random mutations of dict1 and dict2 when# instances are compared.class Horrid: def __init__(self, i): # Comparison outcomes are determined by the value of i. self.i = i # An artificial hashcode is selected at random so that we don't # have any systematic relationship between comparison outcomes # (based on self.i and other.i) and relative position within the # hash vector (based on hashcode). self.hashcode = random.randrange(1000000000) def __hash__(self): return self.hashcode def __cmp__(self, other): maybe_mutate() # The point of the test. return cmp(self.i, other.i) def __repr__(self): return "Horrid(%d)" % self.i# Fill dict d with numentries (Horrid(i), Horrid(j)) key-value pairs,# where i and j are selected at random from the candidates list.# Return d.keys() after filling.def fill_dict(d, candidates, numentries): d.clear() for i in xrange(numentries): d[Horrid(random.choice(candidates))] = \ Horrid(random.choice(candidates)) return d.keys()# Test one pair of randomly generated dicts, each with n entries.# Note that dict comparison is trivial if they don't have the same number# of entires (then the "shorter" dict is instantly considered to be the# smaller one, without even looking at the entries).def test_one(n): global mutate, dict1, dict2, dict1keys, dict2keys # Fill the dicts without mutating them. mutate = 0 dict1keys = fill_dict(dict1, range(n), n) dict2keys = fill_dict(dict2, range(n), n) # Enable mutation, then compare the dicts so long as they have the # same size. mutate = 1 if verbose: print "trying w/ lengths", len(dict1), len(dict2), while dict1 and len(dict1) == len(dict2): if verbose: print ".", c = cmp(dict1, dict2) if verbose: print# Run test_one n times. At the start (before the bugs were fixed), 20# consecutive runs of this test each blew up on or before the sixth time# test_one was run. So n doesn't have to be large to get an interesting# test.# OTOH, calling with large n is also interesting, to ensure that the fixed# code doesn't hold on to refcounts *too* long (in which case memory would# leak).def test(n): for i in xrange(n): test_one(random.randrange(1, 100))# See last comment block for clues about good values for n.test(100)########################################################################### Another segfault bug, distilled by Michael Hudson from a c.l.py post.class Child: def __init__(self, parent): self.__dict__['parent'] = parent def __getattr__(self, attr): self.parent.a = 1 self.parent.b = 1 self.parent.c = 1 self.parent.d = 1 self.parent.e = 1 self.parent.f = 1 self.parent.g = 1 self.parent.h = 1 self.parent.i = 1 return getattr(self.parent, attr)class Parent: def __init__(self): self.a = Child(self)# Hard to say what this will print! May vary from time to time. But# we're specifically trying to test the tp_print slot here, and this is# the clearest way to do it. We print the result to a temp file so that# the expected-output file doesn't need to change.f = open(TESTFN, "w")print >> f, Parent().__dict__f.close()os.unlink(TESTFN)########################################################################### And another core-dumper from Michael Hudson.dict = {}# Force dict to malloc its table.for i in range(1, 10): dict[i] = if = open(TESTFN, "w")class Machiavelli: def __repr__(self): dict.clear() # Michael sez: "doesn't crash without this. don't know why." # Tim sez: "luck of the draw; crashes with or without for me." print >> f return `"machiavelli"` def __hash__(self): return 0dict[Machiavelli()] = Machiavelli()print >> f, str(dict)f.close()os.unlink(TESTFN)del f, dict########################################################################### And another core-dumper from Michael Hudson.dict = {}# let's force dict to malloc its tablefor i in range(1, 10): dict[i] = iclass Machiavelli2: def __eq__(self, other): dict.clear() return 1 def __hash__(self): return 0dict[Machiavelli2()] = Machiavelli2()try: dict[Machiavelli2()]except KeyError: passdel dict########################################################################### And another core-dumper from Michael Hudson.dict = {}# let's force dict to malloc its tablefor i in range(1, 10): dict[i] = iclass Machiavelli3: def __init__(self, id): self.id = id def __eq__(self, other): if self.id == other.id: dict.clear() return 1 else: return 0 def __repr__(self): return "%s(%s)"%(self.__class__.__name__, self.id) def __hash__(self): return 0dict[Machiavelli3(1)] = Machiavelli3(0)dict[Machiavelli3(2)] = Machiavelli3(0)f = open(TESTFN, "w")try: try: print >> f, dict[Machiavelli3(2)] except KeyError: passfinally: f.close() os.unlink(TESTFN)del dict
⌨️ 快捷键说明
复制代码
Ctrl + C
搜索代码
Ctrl + F
全屏模式
F11
切换主题
Ctrl + Shift + D
显示快捷键
?
增大字号
Ctrl + =
减小字号
Ctrl + -