Bug 1696452 Comment 2 Edit History

Note: The actual edited comment in the bug view page will always show the original commenter’s name and original timestamp.

Original comment by
on 
Looking at this more closely, this might be a side-effect of the fix for bug 1658214.


Kris, in that bug you fixed a problem in BindingUtils where you check `IsCurrentInnerWindow` to prevent a security problem. I think the way the check is made, the side-effect might be that if there is no window at all (e.g. in xpcshell), that you can no longer use APIs that call `mozilla::dom::ConstructJSImplementation`.

Is it safe for me to think about excluding the case where there is no window at all and/or special-case xpcshell for this purpose?
Revision 1 by
on 
Looking at this more closely, this might be a side-effect of the fix for bug 1658214.


Kris, in that bug you fixed a problem in `BindingUtils` where you check `IsCurrentInnerWindow` to prevent a security problem. I think the way the check is made, the side-effect might be that if there is no window at all (e.g. in xpcshell), that you can no longer use APIs that call `mozilla::dom::ConstructJSImplementation`.

Is it safe for me to think about excluding the case where there is no window at all and/or special-case xpcshell for this purpose?
Revision 2 by
on 
Looking at this more closely, this might be a side-effect of the fix for bug 1658214.


Kris, in that bug you fixed a problem in `BindingUtils` where you check `IsCurrentInnerWindow` to prevent a security problem. I think the way the check is made, the side-effect might be that if there is no window at all (e.g. in xpcshell), we crash and therefore can no longer use APIs that call `mozilla::dom::ConstructJSImplementation`.

Is it safe for me to think about excluding the case where there is no window at all and/or special-case xpcshell for this purpose?

Back to Bug 1696452 Comment 2