#24046 closed Cleanup/optimization (fixed)
Deprecate the "escape" half of django.utils.safestring
Reported by: | Aymeric Augustin | Owned by: | nobody |
---|---|---|---|
Component: | Utilities | Version: | dev |
Severity: | Normal | Keywords: | |
Cc: | Triage Stage: | Accepted | |
Has patch: | yes | Needs documentation: | no |
Needs tests: | no | Patch needs improvement: | no |
Easy pickings: | no | UI/UX: | no |
Description
Since any data that isn't explicitly marked as safe must be treated as unsafe, I don't understand why we have EscapeData
and its subclasses nor the mark_for_escaping
function.
It seems to me that we could keep only the "safe" half of django.utils.safestring and deprecate the "escape" half.
As a matter of fact the "escape" isn't used meaningfully anywhere in Django.
Change History (12)
comment:1 by , 10 years ago
Triage Stage: | Unreviewed → Accepted |
---|
comment:2 by , 10 years ago
Just thinking about an upgrade path for something as security-sensitive as escape
makes my head hurt. This will not be an easy task.
comment:3 by , 9 years ago
I started some exploratory work. I remove usage of mark_for_escaping()
and EscapeData
in the template engine to give an idea of what the code might look like with them removed. It wasn't difficult to get the tests passing besides a couple modifications to tests in test_force_escape.py
which seem like edge cases (chained usage of escape|force_escape
).
Aymeric, I didn't think through the upgrade path completely, but could elaborate on the difficulties you foresaw in that last comment if you remember them? Maybe the tests don't capture why this is tricky.
comment:4 by , 9 years ago
I was in the middle of a large refactor of templates when I filed this issue, which made me worry a lot about anything that looked like it could extend the scope of what I was doing.
I don't remember specific problems other than guaranteeing that this change wouldn't introduce security issues.
comment:5 by , 9 years ago
Here's a problematic test case for my proof of concept:
@setup({'chaining111': '{% autoescape off %}{{ a|escape|add:"<script>" }}{% endautoescape %}'}) def test_chaining111(self): output = self.engine.render_to_string('chaining111', {'a': 'a < b'}) self.assertEqual(output, 'a < b<script>')
The documentation for the escape
filter says,
The escaping is only applied when the string is output, so it does not matter where in a chained sequence of filters you put
escape
: it will always be applied as though it were the last filter. If you want escaping to be applied immediately, use theforce_escape
filter.
My implementation changes this so that the escape
filter no longer executes after all other filters (it runs conditional_escape()
right away). This means that the above test fails and the output is: 'a < b<script>'
.
The behavior of escape
running last no matter its position doesn't seem so intuitive, but it could be problematic to simply change it. A way forward could be to deprecate the escape
filter in favor of a new filter called conditional_escape
which would simply call the function of the same name. With the new filter, template authors will get equivalent behavior to escape
as long as they put this filter last.
Alternatively, we could raise a deprecation warning if the escape
filter isn't last in the list of filters and then change the behavior to use conditional_escape()
at the end of the deprecation period. This has the potential to be less safe for users, however, as a project might skip over the Django versions with the warnings and not realize the behavior has changed. On the other hand, I hope few users are running with autoscape off and writing code like the test.
I'll probably take this to the mailing list in a few days. In the meantime, feel free to comment with any thoughts.
comment:10 by , 8 years ago
Summary: | Consider deprecating the "escape" half of django.utils.safestring → Deprecate the "escape" half of django.utils.safestring |
---|
The idea is you should use
conditional_escape()
instead ofescape()
This makes sense to me.It would be great if we could even have escape = conditional_escape, but that (might?) have the possibility of silently not escaping something?