Closed Bug 328161 Opened 18 years ago Closed 18 years ago

More evalInSandbox cleanup

Categories

(Core :: XPConnect, defect, P3)

defect

Tracking

()

RESOLVED FIXED
mozilla1.9alpha1

People

(Reporter: mrbkap, Assigned: mrbkap)

Details

(Whiteboard: [patch])

Attachments

(1 file, 1 obsolete file)

In bug 265740, I fixed a GC hazard and added some auto requests to the sandbox code. timeless pointed out that I'd missed one more place for a request and wanted to file a new bug, however I have some cleanup that I want to do first:
*) Instead of having to delete the temporary sandcx at every early return, use the newly created XPCAutoJSContext.
*) There are a couple of ways that attempt to propagate uncaught exceptions that no longer are needed thanks to JSOPTION_DONT_REPORT_UNCAUGHT.
*) The request stuff.

Patch next.
Status: NEW → ASSIGNED
Priority: -- → P3
Whiteboard: [patch]
Attached patch Implementation (obsolete) — Splinter Review
Attachment #212704 - Flags: superreview?(shaver)
Attachment #212704 - Flags: review?(brendan)
Comment on attachment 212704 [details] [diff] [review]
Implementation

note that AutoJSSuspendRequest exists. and is generally the right thing to do instead of explciitly calling .EndRequest().
I suppose I could go with XPCAutoSuspendRequest, except that after the JS_EvaluateUCScriptForPrincipals, we no longer need to use the sandcx at all.
This probably needs to block 1.8.0.2.  See bug 328044 comment 5 and 6.
Flags: blocking1.8.0.2?
Comment on attachment 212704 [details] [diff] [review]
Implementation

I botched the request stuff here anyway. I'll patch the other bug since JSOPTION_DONT_REPORT_UNCAUGHT doesn't exist there.
Attachment #212704 - Attachment is obsolete: true
Attachment #212704 - Flags: superreview?(shaver)
Attachment #212704 - Flags: review?(brendan)
Attachment #212704 - Flags: review-
Looks like a dupe of bug 328044, and that one has a combined patch
Flags: blocking1.8.0.2? → blocking1.8.0.2-
Attachment #212784 - Flags: superreview?(shaver)
Attachment #212784 - Flags: review?(brendan)
Comment on attachment 212784 [details] [diff] [review]
Better implementation

Thot I r+'d this already...

/be
Attachment #212784 - Flags: review?(brendan) → review+
Comment on attachment 212784 [details] [diff] [review]
Better implementation

sr=shaver.  Blake to test an edge case we think should be fine.
Attachment #212784 - Flags: superreview?(shaver) → superreview+
Fix checked into trunk.
Status: ASSIGNED → RESOLVED
Closed: 18 years ago
Resolution: --- → FIXED
You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.

Attachment

General

Created:
Updated:
Size: