-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 33.6k
[3.14] gh-119452: Read/write CGI data using worker threads #142181
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
encukou
wants to merge
4
commits into
python:3.14
Choose a base branch
from
encukou:3.14-cgi-readers-writers
base: 3.14
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and old review comments may become outdated.
+100
−11
Open
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
4 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
5 changes: 5 additions & 0 deletions
5
Misc/NEWS.d/next/Security/2024-05-23-11-44-41.gh-issue-119452.PRfsSv.rst
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
| Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
|---|---|---|
| @@ -0,0 +1,5 @@ | ||
| Fix a potential memory denial of service in the :mod:`http.server` module. | ||
| When a malicious user is connected to the CGI server on Windows, it could cause | ||
| an arbitrary amount of memory to be allocated. | ||
| This could have led to symptoms including a :exc:`MemoryError`, swapping, out | ||
| of memory (OOM) killed processes or containers, or even system crashes. |
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.
The issue was only around the memory allocation of an untrusted nbytes value here. introducing a thread seems unnecessary. There wasn't a resource exhaustion problem with this blocking for the issue at hand.
The memory-address-space-DoS consumption point is to only allocate an amount close in magnitude to the total data that actually arrives rather than the untrusted number up front. A simple loop reading in chunk increments as the earlier PR #119455 did, but without a select at all would handle the issue fine. (ie: just remove the select from the earlier pr entirely)