【原创】chrome已提交的两个漏洞分析(三)

Reduction RedundancyElimination::ReduceSpeculativeNumberOperation(Node* node) {
DCHECK(node->opcode() == IrOpcode::kSpeculativeNumberAdd ||
node->opcode() == IrOpcode::kSpeculativeNumberSubtract ||
node->opcode() == IrOpcode::kSpeculativeSafeIntegerAdd ||
node->opcode() == IrOpcode::kSpeculativeSafeIntegerSubtract ||
node->opcode() == IrOpcode::kSpeculativeToNumber);
DCHECK_EQ(1, node->op()->EffectInputCount());
DCHECK_EQ(1, node->op()->EffectOutputCount());

Node* const first = NodeProperties::GetValueInput(node, 0);
Node* const effect = NodeProperties::GetEffectInput(node);
EffectPathChecks const* checks = node_checks_.Get(effect);
// If we do not know anything about the predecessor, do not propagate just yet
// because we will have to recompute anyway once we compute the predecessor.
if (checks == nullptr) return NoChange();

// Check if there's a CheckBounds operation on {first}
// in the graph already, which we might be able to
// reuse here to improve the representation selection
// for the {node} later on.
if (Node* check = checks->LookupBoundsCheckFor(first)) {
// Only use the bounds {check} if its type is better <----------[1]
// than the type of the {first} node, otherwise we
// would end up replacing NumberConstant inputs with
// CheckBounds operations, which is kind of pointless.
if (!NodeProperties::GetType(first).Is(NodeProperties::GetType(check))) {
NodeProperties::ReplaceValueInput(node, check, 0);
}
}

return UpdateChecks(node, checks);
}

为了触发ReduceSpeculativeNumberOperation函数，我们需要创造出那几个特定的节点，比如SpeculativeNumberAdd，通过x + (o.cf ? “” : 0)操作可以达到，cf是false。
#【原创】chrome已提交的两个漏洞分析(四)#

路过 帮顶 嘿嘿

看帖要回，回帖才健康，在踩踩，楼主辛苦了！

顶

为保住菊花，这个一定得回复！

我了个去，顶了