➜

This issue tracker has been migrated to GitHub, and is currently read-only.
For more information, see the GitHub FAQs in the Python's Developer Guide.

Author pitrou
Recipients Arach, Arfrever, Huzaifa.Sidhpurwala, Jim.Jewett, Mark.Shannon, PaulMcMillan, Zhiping.Deng, alex, barry, benjamin.peterson, christian.heimes, dmalcolm, eric.araujo, eric.snow, fx5, georg.brandl, grahamd, gregory.p.smith, gvanrossum, gz, jcea, lemburg, mark.dickinson, neologix, pitrou, skrah, terry.reedy, tim.peters, v+python, vstinner, zbysz
Date 2012-01-21.14:27:09
SpamBayes Score 9.451976e-05
Marked as misclassified No
Message-id <1327155912.3382.4.camel@localhost.localdomain>
In-reply-to <1327115744.4992.180.camel@surprise>
Content 
> Thoughts? (apart from "ugh! it's ugly!" yes I know - it's late here) Is it guaranteed that no usage pattern can render this protection inefficient? What if a dict is constructed by intermingling lookups and inserts? Similarly, what happens with e.g. the common use case of dictdefault(list), where you append() after the lookup/insert? Does some key distribution allow the attack while circumventing the protection?
History
Date User Action Args
2012-01-21 14:27:10pitrousetrecipients: + pitrou, lemburg, gvanrossum, tim.peters, barry, georg.brandl, terry.reedy, gregory.p.smith, jcea, mark.dickinson, vstinner, christian.heimes, benjamin.peterson, eric.araujo, grahamd, Arfrever, v+python, alex, zbysz, skrah, dmalcolm, gz, neologix, Arach, Mark.Shannon, eric.snow, Zhiping.Deng, Huzaifa.Sidhpurwala, Jim.Jewett, PaulMcMillan, fx5
2012-01-21 14:27:09pitroulinkissue13703 messages
2012-01-21 14:27:09pitroucreate