-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 190
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
CVE-2018-18854 Use TreeMap instead of HashMap for JsObject key/value pairs, fixes #277 #280
Conversation
val regularTime = nanoBench { JsonParser(regularJson) } | ||
val collidingTime = nanoBench { JsonParser(collidingJson) } | ||
|
||
collidingTime / regularTime must be < 2L // speed must be in same order of magnitude |
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.
If you undo the fix, the ratio is ~ 100x slowdown for this test on my machine.
c0b06dd
to
1a05a62
Compare
| "yes": 1, | ||
| "no": 0 | ||
| }, ["a", "b", null], false] | ||
| "no": 0, |
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.
New rendering output is now ordered by the key Strings. However, that's not guaranteed anywhere so I fixed the test not to assume anything.
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.
LGTM, perf degradation seems ok to me compared to the security implications of the issue.
LGTM |
…pairs, fixes spray#277 The problem is that with String's hashCode implementation it is too simple to create synthetic collisions. This allows an attacker to create an object with keys that all collide which leads to a performance drop for the HashMap just for creating the map in the first place. See scala/bug#11203 for more information about the underlying HashMap issue. For the time being, it seems safer to use a TreeMap which uses String ordering. Benchmarks suggest that using a TreeMap is only ~6% slower for reasonably sized JSON objects up to 100 keys. Benchmark for non-colliding keys: Benchmark (_size) (parser) Mode Cnt Score Error Units ExtractFieldsBenchmark.readSpray 1 HashMap thrpt 5 1195832.262 ± 64366.605 ops/s ExtractFieldsBenchmark.readSpray 1 TreeMap thrpt 5 1342009.641 ± 17307.555 ops/s ExtractFieldsBenchmark.readSpray 10 HashMap thrpt 5 237173.327 ± 70341.742 ops/s ExtractFieldsBenchmark.readSpray 10 TreeMap thrpt 5 233510.618 ± 69638.750 ops/s ExtractFieldsBenchmark.readSpray 100 HashMap thrpt 5 23202.016 ± 1514.763 ops/s ExtractFieldsBenchmark.readSpray 100 TreeMap thrpt 5 21899.072 ± 823.225 ops/s ExtractFieldsBenchmark.readSpray 1000 HashMap thrpt 5 2073.754 ± 66.093 ops/s ExtractFieldsBenchmark.readSpray 1000 TreeMap thrpt 5 1793.329 ± 43.603 ops/s ExtractFieldsBenchmark.readSpray 10000 HashMap thrpt 5 208.160 ± 7.466 ops/s ExtractFieldsBenchmark.readSpray 10000 TreeMap thrpt 5 160.349 ± 5.809 ops/s
1a05a62
to
855b35e
Compare
The problem is that with String's hashCode implementation it is too simple to
create synthetic collisions. This allows an attacker to create an object with
keys that all collide which leads to a performance drop for the HashMap
just for creating the map in the first place. See scala/bug#11203
for more information about the underlying HashMap issue.
For the time being, it seems safer to use a TreeMap which uses String ordering.
Benchmarks suggest that using a TreeMap is only ~6% slower for reasonably sized JSON objects
up to 100 keys.
Benchmark for non-colliding keys:
/cc @plokhotnyuk