XPConnect:Security:XPCNativeWrapper Automation: Difference between revisions

no edit summary
No edit summary
 
No edit summary
Line 1: Line 1:
Notes on the new XPConnect security model [https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=281988 bug 281988].
== Notes on the new XPConnect security model ==
 
See [https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=281988 bug 281988].
 
* Reimplement XPCNativeWrapper in C++ as part of XPConnect, in order to
** wrap deeply, yet lazily
*** so that chrome authors don't have to (remember to) wrap parents, children, grand-children, etc.
** automatically wrap content natives accessed from chrome
*** even less for chrome authors to (have to, therefore fail to ;-) remember
** automatically unwrap when appropriate
** preserve object equality in JS (== and != but not === and !==)
** improve performance over the scriped implementation
* Optimize the chrome-accesses content test using JS engine changes
** a new GCF_SYSTEM flag for objects
*** to distinguish chrome from content objects
*** using the one spare bit above the lock bit for objects
** new JS_IsSystemObject and JS_IsSystemScript APIs
** new JS_FlagSystemObject and JS_FlagSystemScriptFilename APIs
*** JS_FlagSystemScriptFilename allows the embedding to preconfigure script filenames as "system" (chrome, not content)
*** these filenames are pinned for the life of the JSRuntime
* Extend our extension model compatibly
** support extensions sharing content wrappers
*** do not risk breaking extensions by imposing automated XPCNativeWrapper
** allow app and extension files to opt into XPCNativeWrapper automation
** this means a wrapper-sharing policy declaration in the chrome manifest
* Open issues
** should "system" mean has system principals, or has system XPCNativeWrapper?
** if so, we have enough bits
** if not, we need another bit, for wrapper sharing policy, per script filename (but not object)
Confirmed users, Bureaucrats and Sysops emeriti
419

edits