From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1MJVHm-000872-9w
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 24 Jun 2009 12:25:22 -0400
Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1MJVHg-0007xT-4R
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 24 Jun 2009 12:25:21 -0400
Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=41925 helo=monty-python.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1MJVHf-0007xG-UX
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 24 Jun 2009 12:25:15 -0400
Received: from mail2.shareable.org ([80.68.89.115]:60221)
	by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32)
	(Exim 4.60) (envelope-from <jamie@shareable.org>) id 1MJUtx-0001vW-UY
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 24 Jun 2009 12:00:46 -0400
Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2009 17:00:39 +0100
From: Jamie Lokier <jamie@shareable.org>
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 01/11] QMP: Introduce specification file
Message-ID: <20090624160039.GB14121@shareable.org>
References: <20090623012811.53a62493@doriath> <20090623144521.GA614@snarc.org>
	<4A40FB11.8090100@redhat.com> <4A40FB26.2040702@us.ibm.com>
	<4A40FD1A.1040303@redhat.com> <4A40FE31.2010007@us.ibm.com>
	<4A40FFB0.2070905@redhat.com> <4A411FC5.7050701@us.ibm.com>
	<4A412339.5000109@redhat.com> <4A412659.1080803@us.ibm.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <4A412659.1080803@us.ibm.com>
List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/pipermail/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: Anthony Liguori <aliguori@us.ibm.com>
Cc: ehabkost@redhat.com, jan.kiszka@siemens.com, dlaor@redhat.com, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Luiz Capitulino <lcapitulino@redhat.com>, Avi Kivity <avi@redhat.com>, Vincent Hanquez <tab@snarc.org>

Anthony Liguori wrote:
> The odd thing about it is you still have to parse json in JavaScript
> to avoid security problems.  Parsing json in js seems to eliminate
> 99% of the useness of it.

I think this is mistaken.  Last time I looked, you would check the
whole string with a simple regexp to look for badness, and that
confirms it's safe to eval the json.  Good json always passes the
regexp.  Not that I've ever done any json :-)

-- Jamie