A replacement for the Serializable interface

php.internals

Nikita Popov

9 years ago
Hi internals, As you are surely aware, serialization in PHP is a big mess. Said mess is caused by some fundamental issues in the serialization format, and exacerbated by the existence of the Serializable interface. Fixing the serialization format is likely not possible at this point, but we can replace Serializable with a better alternative and I'd like to start a discussion on that. The problem is essentially that Serializable::serialize() is expected to return a string, which is generally obtained by recursively calling serialize() in the Serializable::serialize() implementation. This serialize() call shares state information with the outer serialize(), to ensure that two references to the same object (or the same reference) will continue referring to a single object/reference after serialization. This causes two big issues: First, the implementation is highly order-dependent. If Serializable::serialize() contains multiple calls to serialize(), then calls to unserialize() have to be repeated **in the same order** in Serializable::unserialize(), otherwise unserialization may fail or be corrupted. In particular this means that using parent::serialize() and parent::unserialize() is unsafe. (See also https://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=66052 and linked bugs.) Second, the existence of Serializable introduces security issues that we cannot fix. Allowing the execution of PHP code during unserialization is unsafe, and even innocuous looking code is easily exploited. We have recently mitigated __wakeup() based attacks by delaying __wakeup() calls until the end of the unserialization. We cannot do the same for Serializable::unserialize() calls, as their design strictly requires the unserialization context to still be active during the call. Similarly, Serializable prevents an up-front validation pass of the serialized string, as the format used for Serializable objects is user-defined. The delayed __wakeup() mitigation mentioned in the previous point also interacts badly with Serializable, because we have to delay __wakeup() calls to the end of the unserialization, which in particular also implies that Serializable::unserialize() sees objects prior to wakeup. (See also https://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=74436.) In the end, everything comes down to the fact that Serializable requires nested serialization calls with context sharing. The alternative mechanism (__sleep + __wakeup) does not have these issues (anymore), but it is not sufficiently flexible for general use: Notably, __sleep() allows you to limit which properties are serialized, but the properties still have to actually exist on the object. I'd like to propose the addition of a new mechanism which essentially works the same way as Serializable, but uses arrays instead of strings and does not share context. I'm not sure about the naming (RealSerializable, anyone?), so I'll just go with magic methods __serialize() and __unserialize() for now: public function __serialize() : array; public function __unserialize(array $data) : void; From a userland perspective the implementation should be the same as for Serializable methods, but with interior serialize()/unserialize() calls stripped out. Right now Serializable implementations already usually work by doing something like "return serialize([ ... ])", this would change it to just "return [ ... ]" and move the serialize()/unserialize() call into the engine, where we can perform it safely and robustly. The new methods should reuse the "O" serialization format, rather than introducing a new one. This allows a measure of interoperability with previous PHP versions, which can still decode serialized strings from newer versions using __wakeup(). If an object has both __wakeup() and __unserialize(), then __unserialize() should be called. If an object implements both Serializable::unserialize() and __unserialize(), then we should invoke one or the other based on whether "C" or "O" serialization is used. Thoughts? Nikita

Michał Brzuchalski

9 years ago
I know my voice is doesn't mean anything but IMHO interface with magic methods could bring more inconsistency. I know PHP is consistently inconsistent but I would prefer if it is posdible to fix an issue with present method naming. Cheers 21.04.2017 11:39 "Nikita Popov" <nikita.ppv@gmail.com> napisał(a):

Nikita Popov

9 years ago
On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 2:47 PM, Michał Brzuchalski < michal.brzuchalski@gmail.com> wrote:
> I know my voice is doesn't mean anything but IMHO interface with magic > methods could bring more inconsistency. > > I know PHP is consistently inconsistent but I would prefer if it is > posdible to fix an issue with present method naming. > > Cheers >
Magic methods have a distinct backwards compatibility advantage. They allow you to add __serialize/__unserialize to an existing class that currently uses Serializable. Older PHP versions will then use the Serializable implementation, while never versions will use __serialize/__unserialize. An interface makes this a lot more complicated, because you either have to bump your PHP version requirement (unlikely), or you have to provide a shim interface for older PHP versions. This shim interface would then be part of any library currently implementing Serializable, which seems sub-optimal to me. That's why I think magic methods are better for this case (though I don't strongly care). Also, to answer an OTR question: We cannot simply reuse the Serializable interface by allowing an array return value from Serializable::unserialize(). The array return value is only a means to an end: the important part is that the new serialization mechanism does not share serialization state -- using arrays instead of strings is just a convenient way to achieve this. However, Serializable::unserialize() currently shares the state and we cannot change this without breaking BC -- so we cannot reuse this interface. Nikita

Nicolas Grekas

8 years ago
Please allow me to up vote for this proposal. I'm working on some serialization logic these days, and `Serializable` is totally broken: it breaks internal references in serialized data structures, and breaks custom serializers (e.g. igbinaryà from inspecting nested structures. The proposal here would just fix all these issues. +1000 from me for what it matters :) 2017-04-21 15:50 GMT+02:00 Nikita Popov <nikita.ppv@gmail.com>:

Zeev Suraski

9 years ago
> -----Original Message----- > From: Nikita Popov [mailto:nikita.ppv@gmail.com] > Sent: Friday, April 21, 2017 12:39 PM > To: PHP internals <internals@lists.php.net> > Subject: [PHP-DEV] A replacement for the Serializable interface > > Hi internals, > > I'd like to propose the addition of a new mechanism which essentially works the > same way as Serializable, but uses arrays instead of strings and does not share > context. I'm not sure about the naming (RealSerializable, anyone?), so I'll just go > with magic methods __serialize() and > __unserialize() for now: > > public function __serialize() : array; > public function __unserialize(array $data) : void;
I think this is a very interesting idea that's definitely worth exploring. One thing I think is worth doing is reviewing some of the countless issues we've had with unserialize() over the last year, and try to estimate how many of those would not be relevant with this new approach (which you may have already done). If most of them become irrelevant then this is probably the right direction to go towards. Would you go as far as saying that you think that would be safe to run on untrusted input?
> Thoughts?
Generally, thumbs up from me. Thanks! Zeev