-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 31.4k
net: validate non-string host for socket.connect
#57198
New issue
Have a question about this project? # for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “#”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? # to your account
Merged
nodejs-github-bot
merged 1 commit into
nodejs:main
from
daeyeon:main.net-connect-250224.Mon.9882
Mar 11, 2025
Merged
Changes from all commits
Commits
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Oops, something went wrong.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
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.
Why don't we just validate this on C++? We could just replace the IsString() assertion.
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.
Good point, but since the
net
module has JS layer, validating it in JS seems better for performance. Plus, since other validations are handled in this function, keeping this pattern feels more cohesive.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.
How come validating it on JS is better? I'm not following.
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.
For simple string validations, JS is typically faster since it avoids crossing the JS/C++ boundary. For complex cases, C++ might be more efficient. Let me know if I'm missing 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.
Right now you are adding a branch to both happy and bad path in the benefit of improving bad path (invalid input).
In terms of performance, validating at the C++ and removing that assertion should be the most optimum solution.
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.
Ah, I get it now. The function where the assertion occurs is also used internally in places other than
socket.connect
. In those cases, IsString() assertion seems more appropriate than throwing an exception withoption.host
. I'll look into it further.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.
@anonrig
args[1]
inTCPWrap::Connect
may not be theoptions.host
passed in from users.So, it may not be appropriate to change it like below. It seems better to leave the validation in JS like others.
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.
@anonrig, could you provide feedback ?