src: add process.binding('config') #6266

jasnell · 2016-04-19T04:04:21Z

Checklist

tests and code linting passes
a test and/or benchmark is included
the commit message follows commit guidelines

Affected core subsystem(s)

process

Description of change

It turns out that userland likes to override process.config with their own stuff. If we want to be able to depend on it in any way, we need our own internal reference. It's still not read-only but that should be ok.

Documents that process.config can and likely will be overwritten
Adds process.binding('config')
Adds the icu/intl configs as flags

/cc @Fishrock123 @srl295

Fishrock123 · 2016-04-19T04:13:26Z

It's still not read-only but that should be ok.

Uh, that is not ok. We aren't just going to expose an alias on process, that's only more surface bloat. Just make it an internal/.

jasnell · 2016-04-19T04:21:53Z

Doesn't really seem like an issue to me but very well. Made it internal. PTAL

Fishrock123 · 2016-04-19T04:52:41Z

@jasnell Should this also contain a change changing our internals to use this? It's not very useful to land something that no-one uses. :)

jasnell · 2016-04-19T05:01:05Z

Currently in master we only use process.config directly in tests, which would not be affected. In v4 and v5 we have code that uses process.config in lib but that was refactored out in master. There is one open PR from @srl295 that would add code back into lib that would depend on this that would need to be updated before it lands.

If/when this lands, I intend to backport it to resolve the existing regressions that have occurred in v5 and v4.

bnoordhuis · 2016-04-19T08:31:07Z

lib/internal/process.js

@@ -60,7 +60,7 @@ function setupConfig(_source) {
      .replace(/"/g, '\\"')
      .replace(/'/g, '"');

-  process.config = JSON.parse(config, function(key, value) {
+  process.config = exports.config = JSON.parse(config, (key, value) => {


This line doesn't make a copy, process.config and exports.config point to the same object.

Yep. Modification is still possible. The problem we're having in userland is with code that does stuff like process.config = {}, essentially overwriting everything. The userland code that extends the object hasn't been a problem that I can determine. This is an attempt at doing the simplest thing first. If we need to lock it down more, then let's do so.

If we want to be robust against users clobbering the runtime environment, then we shouldn't take half measures; either we guard against it or we don't.

jasnell · 2016-04-19T15:34:36Z

The other obvious option here is to set a rule that we simply should not be depending on this in core code at all. If some bit of code needs to know if a config flag was set on compile time, then some other mechanism should be used to expose (perhaps an internal/flags module) only the flags we specifically need to check. We can add a lint rule that complains if process.config is used in lib.

bnoordhuis · 2016-04-19T15:50:51Z

That's sounds fine. As long as the net effect is the same.

trevnorris · 2016-04-19T16:12:09Z

Would it be considered a breaking change to make or read only? Native modules use default_configuration to determine what binary to run. Basically, I can think of reasons to make it read only, but not any to leave it mutable.

jasnell · 2016-04-19T16:24:23Z

There are a number of userland modules that either replace process.config outright with alternative objects or that mutate it's properties. Making the entire process.config read only breaks a bunch of stuff.. so yeah, it would definitely be a breaking semver-major.

jasnell · 2016-04-19T18:29:00Z

Ok, so looking it over I can see a couple of possible routes. Here's one that I just stepped through the implementation on:

Add src/node_config.h and src/node_config.cc. These create a new process.binding('_config') that returns an object with selected constant boolean flags on it that are explicitly set only when we know we are actually going to need them. For instance, nodejs/node#3111 - v8BreakIterator disablement #4253 needs to know if small-icu is used and if the icu-data-dir flag has been set... so we'd have two boolean exposed on process.binding('_config') like hasSmallICU and usingICUDataDir. The point is, we're not setting flag constants for every config flag, just the ones we know we're going to need.
We treat process.binding('_config') as an internal only thing. There's no guarantee that flags will stay there.
The upshot is, up to this point, we've been dropping these kinds of flags onto process which has the downside of exposing them to userland. Having the _config binding gives us a private place to expose those to internal code that doesn't pollute process any further.
The downside, of course, it's that it's a new process.binding(). I could, alternatively, add these flag constants to the existing constants binding if that would be more desirable.

Thoughts? Other solutions?

bnoordhuis · 2016-04-19T20:06:11Z

There's never been any stability guarantee for process.binding() so that sounds fine to me.

jasnell · 2016-04-19T23:18:25Z

@bnoordhuis, @srl295, @trevnorris, @Fishrock123 ... PTAL. Reworked this completely to use the proposed process.binding('_config') instead of touching process.config at all

vkurchatkin · 2016-04-20T00:40:42Z

@jasnell why underscore? Binding is already private

jasnell · 2016-04-20T00:42:37Z

To ahem underscore the point? ;) Honestly it's just what I chose in the moment. You're right that it's redundant.

jasnell · 2016-04-20T04:17:01Z

@vkurchatkin ... updated to remove the underscore!

targos · 2016-04-20T04:39:15Z

node.gyp

@@ -132,6 +132,7 @@
        'src/node_buffer.cc',
        'src/node_constants.cc',
        'src/node_contextify.cc',
+        'src/node_config.cc',


nit: this should go between buffer and constants

Fishrock123 · 2016-04-20T04:56:02Z

Can we put the place we are actually going to use this into this PR? This is kinda pointless without being coupled to it. :)

jasnell · 2016-04-20T05:15:08Z

@Fishrock123 ... that's a separate issue (#4253 (comment)) that makes much more sense keeping separated. Also, I'd prefer to keep this separate as I intend to backport it to v5 and v4 to address bugs there.

bnoordhuis · 2016-04-20T09:28:47Z

lib/internal/process.js

@@ -60,7 +60,7 @@ function setupConfig(_source) {
      .replace(/"/g, '\\"')
      .replace(/'/g, '"');

-  process.config = JSON.parse(config, function(key, value) {
+  process.config = JSON.parse(config, (key, value) => {


Unrelated change now.

ah, right +1

PR-URL: nodejs#6266 Reviewed-By: Ben Noordhuis <[email protected]>

It turns out that userland likes to override process.config with their own stuff. If we want to be able to depend on it in any way, we need our own internal mechanism. This adds a new private process.binding('config') that is intended to serve as a container for internal flags and compile time configs that need to be passed on to the JS layer. PR-URL: nodejs#6266 Reviewed-By: Ben Noordhuis <[email protected]>

PR-URL: nodejs#6266 Reviewed-By: Ben Noordhuis <[email protected]>

PR-URL: #6266 Reviewed-By: Ben Noordhuis <[email protected]>

It turns out that userland likes to override process.config with their own stuff. If we want to be able to depend on it in any way, we need our own internal mechanism. This adds a new private process.binding('config') that is intended to serve as a container for internal flags and compile time configs that need to be passed on to the JS layer. PR-URL: #6266 Reviewed-By: Ben Noordhuis <[email protected]>

PR-URL: #6266 Reviewed-By: Ben Noordhuis <[email protected]>

MylesBorins · 2016-06-30T23:22:17Z

@jasnell do we still want to backport this to v4.x?

jasnell · 2016-06-30T23:32:53Z

Oh right! I'll do that.
On Jun 30, 2016 4:22 PM, "Myles Borins" [email protected] wrote:

@jasnell https://github.com/jasnell do we still want to backport this
to v4.x?

—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
#6266 (comment), or mute
the thread
https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe/AAa2eYF0iQmHJmDRKEThtxcXcxlQ5iHsks5qRE-wgaJpZM4IKVnI
.

PR-URL: nodejs#6266 Reviewed-By: Ben Noordhuis <[email protected]>

It turns out that userland likes to override process.config with their own stuff. If we want to be able to depend on it in any way, we need our own internal mechanism. This adds a new private process.binding('config') that is intended to serve as a container for internal flags and compile time configs that need to be passed on to the JS layer. PR-URL: nodejs#6266 Reviewed-By: Ben Noordhuis <[email protected]>

PR-URL: #6266 Reviewed-By: Ben Noordhuis <[email protected]>

It turns out that userland likes to override process.config with their own stuff. If we want to be able to depend on it in any way, we need our own internal mechanism. This adds a new private process.binding('config') that is intended to serve as a container for internal flags and compile time configs that need to be passed on to the JS layer. PR-URL: #6266 Reviewed-By: Ben Noordhuis <[email protected]>

PR-URL: #6266 Reviewed-By: Ben Noordhuis <[email protected]>

It turns out that userland likes to override process.config with their own stuff. If we want to be able to depend on it in any way, we need our own internal mechanism. This adds a new private process.binding('config') that is intended to serve as a container for internal flags and compile time configs that need to be passed on to the JS layer. PR-URL: #6266 Reviewed-By: Ben Noordhuis <[email protected]>

PR-URL: #6266 Reviewed-By: Ben Noordhuis <[email protected]>

It turns out that userland likes to override process.config with their own stuff. If we want to be able to depend on it in any way, we need our own internal mechanism. This adds a new private process.binding('config') that is intended to serve as a container for internal flags and compile time configs that need to be passed on to the JS layer. PR-URL: #6266 Reviewed-By: Ben Noordhuis <[email protected]>

PR-URL: #6266 Reviewed-By: Ben Noordhuis <[email protected]>

It turns out that userland likes to override process.config with their own stuff. If we want to be able to depend on it in any way, we need our own internal mechanism. This adds a new private process.binding('config') that is intended to serve as a container for internal flags and compile time configs that need to be passed on to the JS layer. PR-URL: #6266 Reviewed-By: Ben Noordhuis <[email protected]>

PR-URL: #6266 Reviewed-By: Ben Noordhuis <[email protected]>

It turns out that userland likes to override process.config with their own stuff. If we want to be able to depend on it in any way, we need our own internal mechanism. This adds a new private process.binding('config') that is intended to serve as a container for internal flags and compile time configs that need to be passed on to the JS layer. PR-URL: #6266 Reviewed-By: Ben Noordhuis <[email protected]>

jasnell added the process Issues and PRs related to the process subsystem. label Apr 19, 2016

jasnell mentioned this pull request Apr 19, 2016

nodejs/node#3111 - v8BreakIterator disablement #4253

Closed

bnoordhuis reviewed Apr 19, 2016
View reviewed changes

jasnell added the wip Issues and PRs that are still a work in progress. label Apr 19, 2016

jasnell force-pushed the process-config branch from 26a503e to e075bf8 Compare April 19, 2016 23:16

jasnell changed the title ~~process: set an internal copy of process._config~~ src: add process.binding('_config') Apr 19, 2016

jasnell mentioned this pull request Apr 20, 2016

module: expose Module._runInThisContext #6288

Closed

3 tasks

jasnell force-pushed the process-config branch 2 times, most recently from 6f62762 to b9afcf3 Compare April 20, 2016 04:16

jasnell changed the title ~~src: add process.binding('_config')~~ src: add process.binding('config') Apr 20, 2016

targos reviewed Apr 20, 2016
View reviewed changes

jasnell added the lts-watch-v4.x label Apr 20, 2016

bnoordhuis reviewed Apr 20, 2016
View reviewed changes

jasnell closed this Apr 21, 2016

joelostrowski pushed a commit to joelostrowski/node that referenced this pull request Apr 25, 2016

doc: note that process.config can and will be changed

c773040

PR-URL: nodejs#6266 Reviewed-By: Ben Noordhuis <[email protected]>

joelostrowski pushed a commit to joelostrowski/node that referenced this pull request Apr 25, 2016

src: add intl and icu configs to process.binding('config')

b1c85dd

PR-URL: nodejs#6266 Reviewed-By: Ben Noordhuis <[email protected]>

jasnell added a commit that referenced this pull request Apr 26, 2016

doc: note that process.config can and will be changed

61a214e

PR-URL: #6266 Reviewed-By: Ben Noordhuis <[email protected]>

jasnell added a commit that referenced this pull request Apr 26, 2016

src: add intl and icu configs to process.binding('config')

86ff844

PR-URL: #6266 Reviewed-By: Ben Noordhuis <[email protected]>

jasnell added a commit to jasnell/node that referenced this pull request Jul 5, 2016

doc: note that process.config can and will be changed

263b1d9

PR-URL: nodejs#6266 Reviewed-By: Ben Noordhuis <[email protected]>

MylesBorins pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Jul 11, 2016

doc: note that process.config can and will be changed

5d632fc

PR-URL: #6266 Reviewed-By: Ben Noordhuis <[email protected]>

MylesBorins added dont-land-on-v4.x and removed lts-watch-v4.x labels Jul 11, 2016

MylesBorins pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Jul 11, 2016

doc: note that process.config can and will be changed

6d78caf

PR-URL: #6266 Reviewed-By: Ben Noordhuis <[email protected]>

MylesBorins pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Jul 12, 2016

doc: note that process.config can and will be changed

118acaf

PR-URL: #6266 Reviewed-By: Ben Noordhuis <[email protected]>

MylesBorins mentioned this pull request Jul 12, 2016

v4.5.0 proposal #7688

Merged

MylesBorins pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Jul 14, 2016

doc: note that process.config can and will be changed

b55e65a

PR-URL: #6266 Reviewed-By: Ben Noordhuis <[email protected]>

MylesBorins pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Jul 14, 2016

doc: note that process.config can and will be changed

9121e94

PR-URL: #6266 Reviewed-By: Ben Noordhuis <[email protected]>

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

src: add process.binding('config') #6266

src: add process.binding('config') #6266

jasnell commented Apr 19, 2016 •

edited

Loading

Fishrock123 commented Apr 19, 2016 •

edited

Loading

jasnell commented Apr 19, 2016

Fishrock123 commented Apr 19, 2016

jasnell commented Apr 19, 2016

bnoordhuis Apr 19, 2016

jasnell Apr 19, 2016

bnoordhuis Apr 19, 2016

jasnell commented Apr 19, 2016

bnoordhuis commented Apr 19, 2016

trevnorris commented Apr 19, 2016

jasnell commented Apr 19, 2016

jasnell commented Apr 19, 2016

bnoordhuis commented Apr 19, 2016

jasnell commented Apr 19, 2016

vkurchatkin commented Apr 20, 2016

jasnell commented Apr 20, 2016

jasnell commented Apr 20, 2016

targos Apr 20, 2016

Fishrock123 commented Apr 20, 2016

jasnell commented Apr 20, 2016

bnoordhuis Apr 20, 2016

jasnell Apr 20, 2016

MylesBorins commented Jun 30, 2016

jasnell commented Jun 30, 2016

src: add process.binding('config') #6266

src: add process.binding('config') #6266

Conversation

jasnell commented Apr 19, 2016 • edited Loading

Checklist

Affected core subsystem(s)

Description of change

Fishrock123 commented Apr 19, 2016 • edited Loading

jasnell commented Apr 19, 2016

Fishrock123 commented Apr 19, 2016

jasnell commented Apr 19, 2016

bnoordhuis Apr 19, 2016

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

jasnell Apr 19, 2016

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

bnoordhuis Apr 19, 2016

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

jasnell commented Apr 19, 2016

bnoordhuis commented Apr 19, 2016

trevnorris commented Apr 19, 2016

jasnell commented Apr 19, 2016

jasnell commented Apr 19, 2016

bnoordhuis commented Apr 19, 2016

jasnell commented Apr 19, 2016

vkurchatkin commented Apr 20, 2016

jasnell commented Apr 20, 2016

jasnell commented Apr 20, 2016

targos Apr 20, 2016

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Fishrock123 commented Apr 20, 2016

jasnell commented Apr 20, 2016

bnoordhuis Apr 20, 2016

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

jasnell Apr 20, 2016

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

MylesBorins commented Jun 30, 2016

jasnell commented Jun 30, 2016

jasnell commented Apr 19, 2016 •

edited

Loading

Fishrock123 commented Apr 19, 2016 •

edited

Loading