Harden Function()'s parsing of function literals.

src/v8natives.js

Index: src/v8natives.js
diff --git a/src/v8natives.js b/src/v8natives.js
index f295c3a6de37d0f4fdc4d3aab65a854784d1e035..4f358372fe767c642f9de05d10c8f5f5bf4f3745 100644
--- a/src/v8natives.js
+++ b/src/v8natives.js
@@ -174,7 +174,7 @@ function GlobalEval(x) {
                          'be the global object from which eval originated');
   }
 
-  var f = %CompileString(x);
+  var f = %CompileString(x, false);
   if (!IS_FUNCTION(f)) return f;
 
   return %_CallFunction(global_receiver, f);
@@ -1704,14 +1704,18 @@ function NewFunction(arg1) {  // length == 1
     // character - it may make the combined function expression
     // compile. We avoid this problem by checking for this early on.
     if (p.indexOf(')') != -1) throw MakeSyntaxError('unable_to_parse',[]);
+    // If the formal parameters include an unbalanced block comment, the
+    // function must be rejected. Since JavaScript does not allow nested
+    // comments we can include a trailing block comment to catch this.
+    p += '\n\x2f\x2a*/';

[rossberg, 2013/03/07 15:08:18]

It would be more readable if you simply wrote '\n/' + '**/'  ;)

Should I apply for a patent with the nested comment trick? :)

[Michael Starzinger, 2013/03/07 15:37:36]

Done. Yeah, you should definitely do that! ;)

   }
   var body = (n > 0) ? ToString(%_Arguments(n - 1)) : '';
-  var source = '(function(' + p + ') {\n' + body + '\n})';
+  var source = '(function(\n' + p + '\n){\n' + body + '\n})';
 
   // The call to SetNewFunctionAttributes will ensure the prototype
   // property of the resulting function is enumerable (ECMA262, 15.3.5.2).
   var global_receiver = %GlobalReceiver(global);
-  var f = %_CallFunction(global_receiver, %CompileString(source));
+  var f = %_CallFunction(global_receiver, %CompileString(source, true));
 
   %FunctionMarkNameShouldPrintAsAnonymous(f);
   return %SetNewFunctionAttributes(f);