JS IPDL API
Categories
(Core :: DOM: Content Processes, enhancement, P5)
Tracking
()
People
(Reporter: tristanbourvon, Unassigned)
References
(Blocks 1 open bug)
Details
Attachments
(5 files)
46 bytes,
text/x-phabricator-request
|
mrbkap
:
review+
mccr8
:
review+
|
Details | Review |
46 bytes,
text/x-phabricator-request
|
Details | Review | |
46 bytes,
text/x-phabricator-request
|
Details | Review | |
46 bytes,
text/x-phabricator-request
|
Details | Review | |
46 bytes,
text/x-phabricator-request
|
Details | Review |
Reporter | ||
Comment 1•6 years ago
|
||
Reporter | ||
Comment 2•6 years ago
|
||
Comment 3•6 years ago
|
||
Reporter | ||
Comment 4•6 years ago
|
||
Comment 5•6 years ago
|
||
Reporter | ||
Comment 6•6 years ago
|
||
Comment 7•6 years ago
|
||
Reporter | ||
Comment 8•6 years ago
|
||
Comment 9•6 years ago
|
||
Comment 10•6 years ago
|
||
Comment 11•6 years ago
|
||
Comment 12•6 years ago
|
||
Reporter | ||
Comment 13•6 years ago
|
||
Comment 14•6 years ago
|
||
Comment 15•6 years ago
|
||
Comment 16•6 years ago
|
||
Comment 17•6 years ago
|
||
Comment 18•6 years ago
|
||
Comment 19•6 years ago
|
||
Comment 20•6 years ago
|
||
Comment 21•6 years ago
|
||
Comment 22•6 years ago
|
||
Comment 23•6 years ago
|
||
Comment 24•6 years ago
|
||
Comment 25•6 years ago
|
||
Updated•6 years ago
|
Updated•6 years ago
|
Updated•5 years ago
|
Updated•5 years ago
|
Comment 26•2 years ago
|
||
Nika, can you help us figure out what the status of this bug is? Having an IPDL-like system for JS actors would be great for security and I would like to help unblock this.
Comment 27•2 years ago
|
||
As I mentioned to you on matrix, there are a lot of potential paths forward here depending on what exactly we're looking for from JS actors.
For improving JSWindowActors and validation there, we can perhaps use a schema system for IPC messages in the WindowActorSidedOptions
, which specifies what messages are allowed to be sent, and the shape of valid messages, in some way. We could include a legacy opt-out for the current behaviour and slowly transition things over to specifying the types precisely.
Comment 28•2 years ago
|
||
I think a big issue here is figuring out exactly what kind of type system you want for these messages. You'd want to talk to people who are actually figuring out what kind of system makes sense for them. I think that given a type system, it wouldn't be too hard to dynamically infer a type for a message, so once something like that was set up we could do a try run and automatically generate specifications for many of the messages. We'd still probably want to look over the results, so there might still be a lot of work, but at least the boiler plate would be taken care of.
Updated•2 years ago
|
Comment 29•7 months ago
|
||
This hasn't been actively worked on in years, so I'm going to close it. Hopefully bug 1885221 will make our JS IPC a bit more controlled.
Description
•