Make sure that we can't access hidden properties by installing accessors on Object.prototype.

Make sure that we can't access hidden properties by installing accessors on Object.prototype.

BUG:chromium:97784
TEST=cctest/test-api
Committed: http://code.google.com/p/v8/source/detail?r=9434

[Lasse Reichstein, 2011-09-26 13:02:21]

lgtm

http://codereview.chromium.org/8041020/diff/1/test/cctest/test-api.cc
File test/cctest/test-api.cc (right):

http://codereview.chromium.org/8041020/diff/1/test/cctest/test-api.cc#newcode...
test/cctest/test-api.cc:1837: CHECK_EQ(42,
obj->GetHiddenValue(key)->Int32Value());
Should we prevent people from doing SetHiddenValue("__proto__", ...) ? 

We really, really shouldn't have used an Object to store the properties if a
plain Dictionary could have done the job. This is not the first time we have
used an object for internal book-keeping, and got caught by acessors on
Object.prototype.

[Rico, 2011-09-26 13:09:48]

http://codereview.chromium.org/8041020/diff/1/test/cctest/test-api.cc
File test/cctest/test-api.cc (right):

http://codereview.chromium.org/8041020/diff/1/test/cctest/test-api.cc#newcode...
test/cctest/test-api.cc:1837: CHECK_EQ(42,
obj->GetHiddenValue(key)->Int32Value());
On 2011/09/26 13:02:21, Lasse Reichstein wrote:
> Should we prevent people from doing SetHiddenValue("__proto__", ...) ? 
> 
> We really, really shouldn't have used an Object to store the properties if a
> plain Dictionary could have done the job. This is not the first time we have
> used an object for internal book-keeping, and got caught by acessors on
> Object.prototype.

As discussed offline, we should, but the real long term solution is to use a
dictionary instead of an object for storing these hidden properties. Since this
is a bug fix I am leaving as is for now.