Restricting subclassing support in built-in methods

Champions: Shu-yu Guo (Google), Yulia Startsev (Mozilla)

Stage: 1

Last presentation: Notes, slides

Subclass instance creation via @@species in built-in methods of Array, RegExp, Promise, and TypedArray, as well as property lookups of e.g. "exec" on the receiver in built-in methods of RegExp, are considered by many implementers and some committee members to be one of TC39’s greatest mistakes for the language. It imposes great complexity on the implementation and mental model of the language, the cost which has resulted in many security vulnerabilities.

This proposal seeks to remove subclassing support via @@species and related machinery, such as property lookups of "flags" and "exec" in certain RegExp built-ins.

This is a significant, fill-or-kill, backwards incompatible change that seeks to remove all built-in subclassing machinery. Doing finer-grained removal for certain methods or constructors will result in more confusion and does not remedy the complexity and maintenance burden costs.

Motivation

Supporting subclassing in built-ins via @@species and related machinery incurs significant burden:

Increased implementation complexity and maintainability
Performance cliffs
Security bugs

Natalie Silvanoich from Project Zero gave a talk to TC39 in 2018 that called out the effect of @@species on security vulnerabilities. Below is a list of security bugs caused by @@species:

Chrome:

Firefox

https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1537924

Supporting built-in subclassing has also negatively affected authoring of new built-ins. Current and future spec authors, often in deference to consistency, propagate the @@species machinery.

@@species has also negatively affected other specifications that interact with JavaScript, like WebAssembly, that were not aware of this corner of the specification.

Taxonomy of subclassing

@domenic has an excellent taxonomy for subclassing built-ins in JS, which I adopt here and modified slightly. JS currently supports all of the following types of subclassing of built-ins.

Type I: minimal support

Type I is supported if creating subclasses of built-ins is possible. For example, if derived class can call super(). Support for this is provided via new.target.

Example

class A extends Array {
  constructor(a,b,c) {
    super(a,b,c);
  }
}
new A(1,2,3);      // return type: A

Without Type I support, and doesn't support new.target the following would be true

class A extends Array {
  constructor(a,b,c) {
    super(a,b,c);
  }
}
new A(1,2,3);      // return type: Array

Cost benefit

㊟ There is crucial dependence on Type I subclassing and it is worth the implementation and language cost.

Type I is used by user libraries, as well as by the web platform in WebIDL and DOM.

Type II: subclass instance creation in built-in methods

Type II is supported if built-in methods create new instances of the subclass. For example, if Array.prototype.map or Array.from returns instances of subclasses of Array. Support for this is subsumed by the support for Type III below via this.constructor[@@species].

Example

class A extends Array { }

A.from([1,2,3])    // return type: A
 .map(x => x + 1); // return type: A

Cost benefit

㊟ Beneficial, but at cost.

Type II is the intuition enjoyed by many developers. It enables user libraries to subclass built-ins like Array without also having to maintain overrides of all instance-creating methods.

However, it incurs implementation complexity in that built-in methods have overrideable behavior that results in arbitrary code being executed via this.constructor. In implementations, this results in a proliferation of slow-paths and invariants that cause JIT code to deoptimize. Failure to do so may and have resulted in serious security vulnerabilities in browsers. In the language, this.constructor resulting in possible arbitrary code execution in some built-ins increases difficulty of reasoning.

Type III: customizable subclass instance creation in built-in methods

Type III is supported if built-in methods create new instances of the subclass's choosing. For example, if Array.prototype.map or Array.from returns instances of subclasses of Array via SubclassConstructor[@@species]. Support for this is provided by delegating to this.constructor[@@species] inside built-in methods with custom values for the @@species property.

The main difference between Type II and Type III is user expectation, not implementation. Type II is the user expectation that built-in methods, when called on instances of subclasses, have some way of querying the class of those instances and create instances of the subclass. Type III is the addition that subclasses themselves can override Type II behavior programmatically.

Example

class A extends Array {
  static [Symbol.species] = Array;
}

A.from([1,2,3])    // return type: A
 .map(x => x + 1); // return type: Array

Cost benefit

㊟ Not useful, and at great cost.

Type III gives subclasses expressivity to actually opt out of Type II support. If NodeList.prototype.map, as inherited from Array.prototype.map, actually wanted to return an Array instead of a NodeList, it would opt out via setting NodeList[@@species] to Array. In more complex cases, each instance-creating method may have its own consideration, and a single @@species value on the constructor is insufficient.

Supporting @@species compounds the cost already incurred by Type II by making the paths even more complex and the invariants more brittle. In the language, the fact that developers have to think at all about @@species, which is not generally useful, is harmful.

There are no known compelling use cases that are worth this cost.

Type IV: delegation to property lookups in built-in methods

Type IV is supported if built-in methods consult properties on instances instead of internal slots. For example, if RegExp.prototype[@@match] calls this.exec instead of the built-in RegExp exec. Support for this is provided by, well, delegating to property lookups.

Note that RegExp's @@match, @@matchAll, @@replace, @@search, and @@split symbols themselves aren't strictly only for subclassing support, as they are not used in RegExp methods themselves. Instead, they are used as a protocol for String so that completely custom RegExp instances may be consumed.

Example

I hope this example demonstrates that one cannot subclass RegExp piecemeal and have a good time.

function R() { }
Object.setPrototypeOf(R, RegExp);
Object.setPrototypeOf(R.prototype, RegExp.prototype);
R.prototype.exec = function() {
  console.log("overridden");
  return null;
};
// Define a new .global since RegExp#global throws on
// non-RegExp-branded `this`
Object.defineProperty(R.prototype, "global", { value: false });
console.log("some string".match(new R("foo")))     // logs "overridden"

Cost benefit

㊟ Harmful, and at great cost.

Type IV is harmful expressivity. It is very difficult for implementations to provide robust fast paths at all for RegExp, which users have high performance expectations of. The cost of this, depending on the number of overrideable properties, is the cost of Type II and III combined, and then some.

It also makes the language significantly more complex to reason about for built-ins that support it. Users should not be subclassing RegExps piecemeal, and overriding subsets of behaviors via exec or one of the flag properties like global and expect to have a good time. And similarly for Promises. It also makes the spec very hard to understand (cf PromiseCapabilities).

(Since RegExp's symbols aren't for subclassing, they are not considered harmful in this context.)

Proposed new old semantics

We propose to remove support for Type II, Type III, and Type IV subclassing, and only keep Type I.

`Array`

Prototype methods

The following methods on Array.prototype will create and return an Array exotic object in the current Realm. They will no longer consult this.constructor[@@species].

Array.prototype.concat
Array.prototype.filter
Array.prototype.flat
Array.prototype.flatMap
Array.prototype.map
Array.prototype.slice
Array.prototype.splice

This means a subclass calling these methods on subclass instances will always get Array instances back.

Before this change:

class MyArray extends Array { /* ... */ }
let ma = (new MyArray(42)).map((x) => x);
console.log(ma instanceof MyArray) // true

After this change:

class MyArray extends Array { /* ... */ }
let ma = (new MyArray(42)).map((x) => x);
console.log(ma instanceof MyArray) // false
// Result is an Array, not a MyArray.

Constructor methods

The following methods on Array will create and return an Array exotic object in the current Realm. They will no longer conditionally use the this value as a constructor if IsConstructor(this) is true.

Array.from
Array.fromAsync
Array.of

This means any subclass calling these methods on the subclass constructor will always get Array instances back.

Before this change:

class MyArray extends Array { /* ... */ }
let ma = MyArray.from([1,2,3]);
console.log(ma instanceof MyArray) // true

After this change:

class MyArray extends Array { /* ... */ }
let ma = MyArray.from([1,2,3]);
console.log(ma instanceof MyArray) // false
// Result is an Array, not a MyArray.

Removing @@species

Array[@@species] will be removed. This means that the following will no longer be possible using the @@species symbol like this:

class A extends Array {
  static [Symbol.species] = OtherArray;
}

A.from([1,2,3])     // return type: A
  .map(x => x + 1); // return type: OtherArray

`RegExp`

RegExp subclassing machinery involves both @@species and dynamic property lookups on the this value in various prototype methods. Property lookups will be removed in favor of internal slots. @@species will be removed in favor of creating RegExp objects in the current Realm.

Notably, the protocol for RegExp-likes (e.g. @@match) is not removed as part of this proposal since they are not used by RegExp instance or constructor methods themselves.

Prototype methods

Methods on RegExp.prototype will have the following changes where applicable.

If this does not have [[RegExpMatcher]], throw a TypeError.
When creating new RegExp instances, a %RegExp% instance will be created in the current Realm instead of consulting this.constructor[@@species].
this.[[OriginalFlags]] will be consulted instead of this.flags.
this.[[OriginalFlags]] will be consulted instead of this.dotAll.
this.[[OriginalFlags]] will be consulted instead of this.global.
this.[[OriginalFlags]] will be consulted instead of this.ignoreCase.
this.[[OriginalFlags]] will be consulted instead of this.sticky.
this.[[OriginalFlags]] will be used instead of this.unicode.
this.[[OriginalSource]] will be used instead of this.source.
RegExpBuiltinExec will be used instead of this.exec.

These changes apply to the following methods.

RegExp.prototype[@@match]
RegExp.prototype[@@matchAll]
RegExp.prototype[@@replace]
RegExp.prototype[@@search]
RegExp.prototype[@@split]
RegExp.prototype.test

`String` prototype methods

Notably, the String prototype methods are not proposed to be modified.

Removing @@species

RegExp[@@species] will be removed.

Example

Before this change:

class R extends RegExp {
  exec() {
    return "overridden";
  }
}
console.log("some string".match(new R("foo")))     // "overridden"

After this change:

class R extends RegExp {
  exec() {
    return "overridden";
  }
}
console.log("some string".match(new R("foo")))     // null

`Promise`

Prototype methods

The following methods on Promise.prototype will create and return a Promise object in the current Realm. They will no longer consult this.constructor[@@species].

Promise.prototype.finally
Promise.prototype.then

This means a subclass calling these methods on subclass instances will always get Promise instances back.

Before this change:

class MyPromise extends Promise { /* ... */ }
let mp = (new MyPromise(executor)).then(() => {});
console.log(mp instanceof MyPromise) // true

After this change:

class MyPromise extends Promise { /* ... */ }
let mp = (new MyPromise(executor)).then(() => {});
console.log(mp instanceof MyPromise) // false
// Result is a Promise, not a MyPromise.

Constructor methods

The following methods on Promise will create and return a Promise object in the current Realm. They will ignore the this value.

Promise.all
Promise.allSettled
Promise.any
Promise.race
Promise.reject
Promise.resolve

This means any subclass calling these methods on the subclass constructor will always get Promise instances back.

Before this change:

class MyPromise extends Promise { /* ... */ }
let mp = MyPromise.resolve(() => {});
console.log(mp instanceof MyPromise) // true

After this change:

class MyPromise extends Promise { /* ... */ }
let mp = MyPromise.resolve(() => {});
console.log(mp instanceof MyPromise) // false
// Result is an Promise, not a MyPromise.

Removing @@species

Promise[@@species] will be removed.

TypedArray

Constructor

The TypedArray( typedArray ) constructor will no longer use SpeciesConstructor in step 16 and will use %ArrayBuffer%.
Step 17 becomes unnecessary and is removed.

Prototype methods

The following methods on TypedArray.prototype will create and return a TypedArray object in the current Realm. They will no longer consult this.constructor[@@species].

TypedArray.prototype.filter
TypedArray.prototype.map
TypedArray.prototype.slice
TypedArray.prototype.subarray

This means a subclass calling these methods on subclass instances will always get TypedArray instances back.

Before this change:

class MyBuffer extends Uint8Array { /* ... */ }
let mb = (new MyBuffer(42)).filter((x) => true);
console.log(mb instanceof MyBuffer) // true

After this change:

class MyBuffer extends Uint8Array { /* ... */ }
let mb = (new MyBuffer(42)).filter((x) => true);
console.log(mb instanceof MyBuffer) // false
// Result is a Uint8Array, not a MyBuffer.

Constructor methods

The following methods on TypedArray will create and return an TypedArray exotic object in the current Realm. They will ignore the this value.

TypedArray.from
TypedArray.of

This means any subclass calling these methods on the subclass constructor will always get TypedArray instances back.

class MyBuffer extends Uint8Array { /* ... * / }
let mb = MyBuffer.from([1,2,3]);
// Result is an Uint8Array, not a MyBuffer.

Removing @@species

TypedArray[@@species] will be removed.

`ArrayBuffer`

Prototype methods

ArrayBuffer.prototype.slice will create and return an %ArrayBuffer% object in the current Realm. It will no longer consult this.constructor[@@species].

Removing @@species

ArrayBuffer[@@species] will be removed.

`SharedArrayBuffer`

Prototype methods

SharedArrayBuffer.prototype.slice will create and return an %SharedArrayBuffer% object in the current Realm. It will no longer consult this.constructor[@@species].

Removing @@species

SharedArrayBuffer[@@species] will be removed.

`Map`

Removing @@species

Map[@@species] will be removed. It is currently not used.

`Set`

Removing @@species

Set[@@species] will be removed. It is currently not used.

Web compatibility

Built-in subclassing was added as part of ES6. All major browsers have shipped support for it for years: Chrome since 51, Firefox since 41, and Safari since 10. The compatibility risk of unshipping @@species is very real.

There is a cross-vendor concerted effort to assess compatibility risk. Current efforts include, but are not limited to:

Using Chrome UseCounter data to get a conservative picture of usage of subclassing mechanisms, namely @@species and .constructor.
Using queries on HTTP Archive.
Using a crawler to check more in depth URLs from queries on HTTP Archive.
Using instrumented builds of browsers to manually check for breakage.

Very preliminary numbers suggest that there is significant number of occurrences (up to 2% of all page visits in Chrome) of modifying .constructor or @@species on Array, RegExp, and Promise, and much less so in TypedArray constructors (up to 0.04% of all page visits in Chrome). Manual inspection of the web sites that do such modifications reveal that they are not real uses of built-in subclassing but are instead of an outdated core-js shim unconditionally installing a function() { return this; } as the @@species getter.

Thus, the working hypothesis is that most of the real uses are false positives due to outdated shims, and this change is by and large web compatible.

Hunch by subclassing type

Removing Type II has the biggest compatibility risk
Removing Type III is likely to be compatible
Removing Type IV is likely to be compatible

Notable libraries that break

Node.js `Buffer`s and the `Buffer` polyfill

Buffer is a subclass of Uint8Array. Uses of Uint8Array.prototype.map, Uint8Array.prototype.filter, Uint8Array.prototype.subarray, and Uint8Array.prototype.slice will produce Uint8Arrays in the proposed semantics instead of Buffers. Note that Buffer overrides slice, but inherits the other three methods.

Exit criteria

If removing Type III and Type IV is not web compatible, this proposal shall be withdrawn.

If removing Type II is not web compatible (or if there is renewed consensus in TC39 to uphold developer intuition) but removing Type III and Type IV subclassing is web compatible, then this proposal shall explore alternative ways to support only Type II with less implementation and security burden. If no good alternative arises, and implementers deem the benefits of removing Type III and Type IV alone does not justify changing behavior, this proposal shall be withdrawn.

tc39/proposal-rm-builtin-subclassing

Restricting subclassing support in built-in methods

Motivation

Taxonomy of subclassing

Type I: minimal support

Example

Cost benefit

Type II: subclass instance creation in built-in methods

Example

Cost benefit

Type III: customizable subclass instance creation in built-in methods

Example

Cost benefit

Type IV: delegation to property lookups in built-in methods

Example

Cost benefit

Proposed new old semantics

Array

Prototype methods

Constructor methods

Removing @@species

RegExp

Prototype methods

String prototype methods

Removing @@species

Example

Promise

Prototype methods

Constructor methods

Removing @@species

TypedArray

Constructor

Prototype methods

Constructor methods

Removing @@species

ArrayBuffer

Prototype methods

Removing @@species

SharedArrayBuffer

Prototype methods

Removing @@species

Map

Removing @@species

Set

Removing @@species

Meta

Web compatibility

Hunch by subclassing type

Notable libraries that break

Node.js Buffers and the Buffer polyfill

Exit criteria

`Array`

`RegExp`

`String` prototype methods

`Promise`

`ArrayBuffer`

`SharedArrayBuffer`

`Map`

`Set`

Node.js `Buffer`s and the `Buffer` polyfill