From 4710c53dcad1ebf3755f3efb9e80ac24bd72a9b2 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: darylm503 <darylm503@6f19259b-4bc3-4df7-8a09-765794883524>
Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2012 22:12:42 +0000
Subject: AppPkg/Applications/Python: Add Python 2.7.2 sources since the
 release of Python 2.7.3 made them unavailable from the python.org web site.

These files are a subset of the python-2.7.2.tgz distribution from python.org.  Changed files from PyMod-2.7.2 have been copied into the corresponding directories of this tree, replacing the original files in the distribution.

Signed-off-by: daryl.mcdaniel@intel.com


git-svn-id: https://edk2.svn.sourceforge.net/svnroot/edk2/trunk/edk2@13197 6f19259b-4bc3-4df7-8a09-765794883524
---
 .../Python/Python-2.7.2/Lib/test/test_mutants.py   | 292 +++++++++++++++++++++
 1 file changed, 292 insertions(+)
 create mode 100644 AppPkg/Applications/Python/Python-2.7.2/Lib/test/test_mutants.py

(limited to 'AppPkg/Applications/Python/Python-2.7.2/Lib/test/test_mutants.py')

diff --git a/AppPkg/Applications/Python/Python-2.7.2/Lib/test/test_mutants.py b/AppPkg/Applications/Python/Python-2.7.2/Lib/test/test_mutants.py
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000..571249174c
--- /dev/null
+++ b/AppPkg/Applications/Python/Python-2.7.2/Lib/test/test_mutants.py
@@ -0,0 +1,292 @@
+from test.test_support import verbose, TESTFN
+import random
+import os
+
+# From SF bug #422121:  Insecurities in dict comparison.
+
+# Safety of code doing comparisons has been an historical Python weak spot.
+# The problem is that comparison of structures written in C *naturally*
+# wants to hold on to things like the size of the container, or "the
+# biggest" containee so far, across a traversal of the container; but
+# code to do containee comparisons can call back into Python and mutate
+# the container in arbitrary ways while the C loop is in midstream.  If the
+# C code isn't extremely paranoid about digging things out of memory on
+# each trip, and artificially boosting refcounts for the duration, anything
+# from infinite loops to OS crashes can result (yes, I use Windows <wink>).
+#
+# The other problem is that code designed to provoke a weakness is usually
+# white-box code, and so catches only the particular vulnerabilities the
+# author knew to protect against.  For example, Python's list.sort() code
+# went thru many iterations as one "new" vulnerability after another was
+# discovered.
+#
+# So the dict comparison test here uses a black-box approach instead,
+# generating dicts of various sizes at random, and performing random
+# mutations on them at random times.  This proved very effective,
+# triggering at least six distinct failure modes the first 20 times I
+# ran it.  Indeed, at the start, the driver never got beyond 6 iterations
+# before the test died.
+
+# The dicts are global to make it easy to mutate tham from within functions.
+dict1 = {}
+dict2 = {}
+
+# The current set of keys in dict1 and dict2.  These are materialized as
+# lists to make it easy to pick a dict key at random.
+dict1keys = []
+dict2keys = []
+
+# Global flag telling maybe_mutate() whether to *consider* mutating.
+mutate = 0
+
+# If global mutate is true, consider mutating a dict.  May or may not
+# mutate a dict even if mutate is true.  If it does decide to mutate a
+# dict, it picks one of {dict1, dict2} at random, and deletes a random
+# entry from it; or, more rarely, adds a random element.
+
+def maybe_mutate():
+    global mutate
+    if not mutate:
+        return
+    if random.random() < 0.5:
+        return
+
+    if random.random() < 0.5:
+        target, keys = dict1, dict1keys
+    else:
+        target, keys = dict2, dict2keys
+
+    if random.random() < 0.2:
+        # Insert a new key.
+        mutate = 0   # disable mutation until key inserted
+        while 1:
+            newkey = Horrid(random.randrange(100))
+            if newkey not in target:
+                break
+        target[newkey] = Horrid(random.randrange(100))
+        keys.append(newkey)
+        mutate = 1
+
+    elif keys:
+        # Delete a key at random.
+        mutate = 0   # disable mutation until key deleted
+        i = random.randrange(len(keys))
+        key = keys[i]
+        del target[key]
+        del keys[i]
+        mutate = 1
+
+# A horrid class that triggers random mutations of dict1 and dict2 when
+# instances are compared.
+
+class Horrid:
+    def __init__(self, i):
+        # Comparison outcomes are determined by the value of i.
+        self.i = i
+
+        # An artificial hashcode is selected at random so that we don't
+        # have any systematic relationship between comparison outcomes
+        # (based on self.i and other.i) and relative position within the
+        # hash vector (based on hashcode).
+        self.hashcode = random.randrange(1000000000)
+
+    def __hash__(self):
+        return 42
+        return self.hashcode
+
+    def __cmp__(self, other):
+        maybe_mutate()   # The point of the test.
+        return cmp(self.i, other.i)
+
+    def __eq__(self, other):
+        maybe_mutate()   # The point of the test.
+        return self.i == other.i
+
+    def __repr__(self):
+        return "Horrid(%d)" % self.i
+
+# Fill dict d with numentries (Horrid(i), Horrid(j)) key-value pairs,
+# where i and j are selected at random from the candidates list.
+# Return d.keys() after filling.
+
+def fill_dict(d, candidates, numentries):
+    d.clear()
+    for i in xrange(numentries):
+        d[Horrid(random.choice(candidates))] = \
+            Horrid(random.choice(candidates))
+    return d.keys()
+
+# Test one pair of randomly generated dicts, each with n entries.
+# Note that dict comparison is trivial if they don't have the same number
+# of entires (then the "shorter" dict is instantly considered to be the
+# smaller one, without even looking at the entries).
+
+def test_one(n):
+    global mutate, dict1, dict2, dict1keys, dict2keys
+
+    # Fill the dicts without mutating them.
+    mutate = 0
+    dict1keys = fill_dict(dict1, range(n), n)
+    dict2keys = fill_dict(dict2, range(n), n)
+
+    # Enable mutation, then compare the dicts so long as they have the
+    # same size.
+    mutate = 1
+    if verbose:
+        print "trying w/ lengths", len(dict1), len(dict2),
+    while dict1 and len(dict1) == len(dict2):
+        if verbose:
+            print ".",
+        if random.random() < 0.5:
+            c = cmp(dict1, dict2)
+        else:
+            c = dict1 == dict2
+    if verbose:
+        print
+
+# Run test_one n times.  At the start (before the bugs were fixed), 20
+# consecutive runs of this test each blew up on or before the sixth time
+# test_one was run.  So n doesn't have to be large to get an interesting
+# test.
+# OTOH, calling with large n is also interesting, to ensure that the fixed
+# code doesn't hold on to refcounts *too* long (in which case memory would
+# leak).
+
+def test(n):
+    for i in xrange(n):
+        test_one(random.randrange(1, 100))
+
+# See last comment block for clues about good values for n.
+test(100)
+
+##########################################################################
+# Another segfault bug, distilled by Michael Hudson from a c.l.py post.
+
+class Child:
+    def __init__(self, parent):
+        self.__dict__['parent'] = parent
+    def __getattr__(self, attr):
+        self.parent.a = 1
+        self.parent.b = 1
+        self.parent.c = 1
+        self.parent.d = 1
+        self.parent.e = 1
+        self.parent.f = 1
+        self.parent.g = 1
+        self.parent.h = 1
+        self.parent.i = 1
+        return getattr(self.parent, attr)
+
+class Parent:
+    def __init__(self):
+        self.a = Child(self)
+
+# Hard to say what this will print!  May vary from time to time.  But
+# we're specifically trying to test the tp_print slot here, and this is
+# the clearest way to do it.  We print the result to a temp file so that
+# the expected-output file doesn't need to change.
+
+f = open(TESTFN, "w")
+print >> f, Parent().__dict__
+f.close()
+os.unlink(TESTFN)
+
+##########################################################################
+# And another core-dumper from Michael Hudson.
+
+dict = {}
+
+# Force dict to malloc its table.
+for i in range(1, 10):
+    dict[i] = i
+
+f = open(TESTFN, "w")
+
+class Machiavelli:
+    def __repr__(self):
+        dict.clear()
+
+        # Michael sez:  "doesn't crash without this.  don't know why."
+        # Tim sez:  "luck of the draw; crashes with or without for me."
+        print >> f
+
+        return repr("machiavelli")
+
+    def __hash__(self):
+        return 0
+
+dict[Machiavelli()] = Machiavelli()
+
+print >> f, str(dict)
+f.close()
+os.unlink(TESTFN)
+del f, dict
+
+
+##########################################################################
+# And another core-dumper from Michael Hudson.
+
+dict = {}
+
+# let's force dict to malloc its table
+for i in range(1, 10):
+    dict[i] = i
+
+class Machiavelli2:
+    def __eq__(self, other):
+        dict.clear()
+        return 1
+
+    def __hash__(self):
+        return 0
+
+dict[Machiavelli2()] = Machiavelli2()
+
+try:
+    dict[Machiavelli2()]
+except KeyError:
+    pass
+
+del dict
+
+##########################################################################
+# And another core-dumper from Michael Hudson.
+
+dict = {}
+
+# let's force dict to malloc its table
+for i in range(1, 10):
+    dict[i] = i
+
+class Machiavelli3:
+    def __init__(self, id):
+        self.id = id
+
+    def __eq__(self, other):
+        if self.id == other.id:
+            dict.clear()
+            return 1
+        else:
+            return 0
+
+    def __repr__(self):
+        return "%s(%s)"%(self.__class__.__name__, self.id)
+
+    def __hash__(self):
+        return 0
+
+dict[Machiavelli3(1)] = Machiavelli3(0)
+dict[Machiavelli3(2)] = Machiavelli3(0)
+
+f = open(TESTFN, "w")
+try:
+    try:
+        print >> f, dict[Machiavelli3(2)]
+    except KeyError:
+        pass
+finally:
+    f.close()
+    os.unlink(TESTFN)
+
+del dict
+del dict1, dict2, dict1keys, dict2keys
-- 
cgit v1.2.3