557340 - Allow non-chrome-privileged Components.utils.Sandbox instances to exist in separate processes

Status: RESOLVED DUPLICATE of bug 556846

(Core :: IPC, defect)

Description

[Atul Varma [:atul]]

For Jetpack, we'll need to be able to execute semi-privileged extension code in their own sandboxes, which should be able to exist in separate processes. Authority will be provided to them via CPOWs/reverse-CPOWs (see bug 557259) that are effectively injected into the sandbox via require().

Comment 1

[Benjamin Smedberg]

I think you could file this as "create a jetpack process type and make it work". Currently we're using content processes, but that's definitely incorrect.

However, I think we need to look at this a little. Currently you have a JS scope for the jetpack itself (a sandbox scope), and you have a JS scope for the jetpack implementation (a chrome scope). I think for multi-process you're going to need a third scope:

jetpack process: Jetpack itself
jetpack process: jetpack implementation code that needs to run in the jetpack process
firefox process: jetpack implementation code that needs to run in the firefox process

Also remember that the jetpack process isn't going to be using XPCOM.

Comment 2

[Atul Varma [:atul]]

This was resolved by bug 556846, so I'm marking it as duplicate.