Bug 1190679 (webext-oop)

Run WebExtensions out of process

NEW
Assigned to

Status

()

Toolkit
WebExtensions: Untriaged
P1
major
2 years ago
14 hours ago

People

(Reporter: billm, Assigned: kmag)

Tracking

(Depends on: 8 bugs, Blocks: 4 bugs)

unspecified
mozilla45
Points:
---
Dependency tree / graph
Bug Flags:
blocking-webextensions -

Firefox Tracking Flags

(Not tracked)

Details

(Whiteboard: triaged, [we-enterprise][qf:meta][qf:p1])

(Reporter)

Description

2 years ago
Besides setting the remote=true attribute on the browser elements used for extensions, we'll need to move the API-injected code to the other process (via content scripts or something). We'll also need platform support to ensure that all the <browser> elements for a given add-on run in the same process.
(Reporter)

Updated

2 years ago
Priority: -- → P2
Bill, is this bug about running the background pages OOP or more than that?
(Reporter)

Comment 2

2 years ago
There are a couple different kinds of pages that would need to run out of process:
- background page
- browserAction popup page
- any tabs that are showing moz-extension: URIs

We have to move them all together since they can get references to each other's windows.
(Reporter)

Updated

2 years ago
Component: Extension Compatibility → WebExtensions
Product: Firefox → Toolkit
I'd like to work on the extensions; assigning this to myself. :)
Assignee: nobody → echen
(Reporter)

Comment 4

2 years ago
I think this could be a lot of work, including some platform changes. Do you have a plan for this Edgar? Otherwise we should discuss the approach.
Flags: needinfo?(echen)
Summary: Run open extensions out of process → Run WebExtensions out of process
I believe this is a huge work. And I am still in study stage (trying to get whole picture from bug 1175770). Do you have any suggestion where we should start with? Thank you.
Flags: needinfo?(echen) → needinfo?(wmccloskey)
(Reporter)

Comment 6

2 years ago
Sorry it took me a while to get to this.

The actual extension code will run in a content process. We'll do this using remote <browser> elements (and maybe remote moz-browser elements on b2g). The main process will load a process script into the extension process and the two processes will communicate using the process message manager.

We'll need some platform support to ensure that all these <browser> elements run in the same extension process. That could be an attribute on the <browser> DOM element. The <browser> elements that will need this attribute are for the background page, the browser action, and any page loaded with a moz-extension URI. For the latter, we'll need special handling in E10SUtils.jsm [1] on desktop to ensure that the page loads in the right process. I'm not sure how to handle that on b2g.

The ext-*.js scripts will have to be split into main process scripts and an extension process scripts. They'll communicate using the process message manager. Most API functions will probably just be forwarded to the main process, with their arguments sent using structured clone. However, there are some APIs that pass functions, so we'll have to do something special there.

The webRequest API will also need special handling. Right now it requires the request handlers to be synchronous, which won't be the case when the extension is OOP. I think we'll have to make it suspend the request until the extension makes a decision about whether to block.

I think the best way to get started here is to start using a non-remote browser element for the background page. Right now the code is loaded directly into a windowless docshell. If that works, then we can start moving some of the ext-*.js code to process scripts (as well as some of the related code in Extension.jsm, such as GlobalManager).

[1] http://mxr.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/source/browser/modules/E10SUtils.jsm#62
Flags: needinfo?(wmccloskey)
(In reply to Bill McCloskey (:billm) from comment #6)
> Sorry it took me a while to get to this.
> 
> The actual extension code will run in a content process. We'll do this using
> remote <browser> elements (and maybe remote moz-browser elements on b2g).
> The main process will load a process script into the extension process and
> the two processes will communicate using the process message manager.
> 
> We'll need some platform support to ensure that all these <browser> elements
> run in the same extension process. That could be an attribute on the
> <browser> DOM element. The <browser> elements that will need this attribute
> are for the background page, the browser action, and any page loaded with a
> moz-extension URI. For the latter, we'll need special handling in
> E10SUtils.jsm [1] on desktop to ensure that the page loads in the right
> process. I'm not sure how to handle that on b2g.

On b2g we had a need to run different apps in the same process (for Tarako) and we did that by adding a parentapp attribute on <iframe mozbrowser>. The ContentParent uses this attribute at http://mxr.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/source/dom/ipc/ContentParent.cpp#1264

> I think the best way to get started here is to start using a non-remote
> browser element for the background page. Right now the code is loaded
> directly into a windowless docshell. If that works, then we can start moving
> some of the ext-*.js code to process scripts (as well as some of the related
> code in Extension.jsm, such as GlobalManager).

Right, that's what I'm fixing in bug 1198970 as part of getting webRequest to work.
(Reporter)

Updated

2 years ago
Blocks: 1199718
Depends on: 1202478

Updated

2 years ago
Blocks: 1214433
Severity: normal → major
Priority: P2 → P1
Unassigning myself as I am not able to work on this in short term.
Assignee: echen → nobody

Updated

2 years ago
Flags: blocking-webextensions+
(Reporter)

Updated

2 years ago
Assignee: nobody → wmccloskey

Updated

2 years ago
Iteration: --- → 45.1 - Nov 16
(Reporter)

Updated

2 years ago
Depends on: 1224105
OS: Unspecified → All
Hardware: Unspecified → All
Version: 34 Branch → unspecified

Updated

2 years ago
Iteration: 45.1 - Nov 16 → 45.2 - Nov 30
Target Milestone: --- → mozilla45

Updated

a year ago
Whiteboard: triaged
(Reporter)

Updated

a year ago
Depends on: 1253748
After chatting with Bill, we decided to move this to post 48, but before we implement any APIs beyond Chromes implementation.
Flags: blocking-webextensions+ → blocking-webextensions-
(Reporter)

Updated

11 months ago
Depends on: 1287004
(Reporter)

Updated

11 months ago
Depends on: 1287007
(Reporter)

Updated

11 months ago
Depends on: 1287010
Depends on: 1287209
Depends on: 1287210
Alias: webext-oop
(Reporter)

Updated

10 months ago
Depends on: 1287977
(Reporter)

Updated

10 months ago
Depends on: 1287978

Updated

10 months ago
Depends on: 1288276

Updated

10 months ago
Depends on: 1288279

Updated

9 months ago
Depends on: 1302702

Updated

8 months ago
Depends on: 1305216

Updated

8 months ago
Depends on: 1305217
Depends on: 1306110
Depends on: 1317101
Depends on: 1320395

Updated

5 months ago
Depends on: 1323845

Updated

4 months ago
webextensions: --- → +

Updated

4 months ago
Blocks: 1318174
Depends on: 1334557

Updated

4 months ago
Whiteboard: triaged → triaged, [we-enterprise]
Depends on: 1339144
Blocks: 1272869

Updated

2 months ago
Assignee: wmccloskey → kmaglione+bmo

Updated

2 months ago
Depends on: 1353959
Depends on: 1356317
Depends on: 1353060
Depends on: 1357486
Depends on: 1357487
Depends on: 1357490

Updated

a month ago
Depends on: 1357729

Updated

23 days ago
Whiteboard: triaged, [we-enterprise] → triaged, [we-enterprise][qf:meta]

Updated

22 days ago
Depends on: 1362457

Updated

22 days ago
Depends on: 1355239
Depends on: 1361661
Depends on: 1365660

Updated

8 days ago
Blocks: 1363905
Whiteboard: triaged, [we-enterprise][qf:meta] → triaged, [we-enterprise][qf:meta][qf:p1]
You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.