1528449 - Can we still have non-HTTP channels with securityInfo?

Status: NEW

(Core :: Networking, enhancement, P3)

Description

[Boris Zbarsky [:bzbarsky]]

Once bug 1489308 is fixed and wyciwyg is gone, will the documentation for nsIChannel.securityInfo still be correct?

Comment 1

[Michal Novotny [:michal]]

Honza, do you know the answer?

Comment 2

[Honza Bambas (:mayhemer)]

Found:

1. https://searchfox.org/mozilla-central/source/modules/libjar/nsJARChannel.cpp#698
   which is unused: https://searchfox.org/mozilla-central/search?q=symbol:F_%3CT_nsJARChannel%3E_mSecurityInfo&redirect=false

2. https://searchfox.org/mozilla-central/rev/b10ae6b7a50d176a813900cbe9dc18c85acd604b/netwerk/base/nsBaseChannel.cpp#482
   which is unused: https://searchfox.org/mozilla-central/search?q=symbol:F_%3CT_nsBaseChannel%3E_mSecurityInfo&redirect=false, https://searchfox.org/mozilla-central/search?q=symbol:_ZN13nsBaseChannel15SetSecurityInfoEP11nsISupports&redirect=false

Notes:

• InterceptedHttpChannel derives from HttpBaseChannel and doesn't manipulate sec info

So, we can file a bugs to remove mSecurityInfo from nsJARChannel and nsBaseChannel.

And to answer: no, the documentation is outdated. We could even try to move the secinfo property away and let it live only on nsIHttpChannel. More correctly, have a new interface nsISecuredTransportChannel and expose it there, but that is likely an overkill these days ;)

Comment 3

[Dragana Damjanovic [:dragana]]

There is nsBaseChannel

https://searchfox.org/mozilla-central/source/netwerk/base/nsBaseChannel.h#263

Comment 4

[Honza Bambas (:mayhemer)]

(In reply to Dragana Damjanovic [:dragana] from comment #3)

There is nsBaseChannel

https://searchfox.org/mozilla-central/source/netwerk/base/nsBaseChannel.h#263

The member is never set a value.