--Contact emailsSummary
WebAssembly modules may contain large bodies of code, such as a game. Compiling such a module may be time consuming. A stepping stone towards improving the resulting user experience is enabling structured cloning for compiled WebAssembly modules, which would allow them to be stored in IndexedDB, or compiled by a Worker (these are just examples). The feature is further described in the WebAssembly public design document here (Note that the WebAssembly specification is still in flux)
In Chrome, the feature is enabled through changes to the structured cloning code (ScriptValueSerializer, mainly). Seehttps://codereview.chromium.org/2255673003/, the first CL.Ongoing technical constraints
None
Tracking bug
Tracked by v8 issue https://bugs.chromium.org/p/v8/issues/detail?id=5072
--
Chromium Developers mailing list: chromi...@chromium.org
View archives, change email options, or unsubscribe:
http://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/group/chromium-dev
+jbroman
If we assume a compromised renderer, the check at serialization time doesn't help much
If we assume a compromised renderer, the check at serialization time doesn't help much
Why do we think sending WebAssembly is scarier than sending JS source text?
On Fri, Sep 2, 2016 at 1:48 PM, Elliott Sprehn <esp...@chromium.org> wrote:Why do we think sending WebAssembly is scarier than sending JS source text?This proposal would send the compiled V8 representation, rather than the format sent over the network. (The objective being to avoid the time spent compiling.)
By restricting this to same origin, and once oopif is on by default, we'd make this exploit less likely (compromising one renderer from another)
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "blink-dev" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to blink-dev+unsubscribe@chromium.org.
I might be missing something here... isn't WebAssembly.Module just a opaque handle to the compiled binary? (which it seems by reading the reading the API can only come from the output of compiling an AST? i.e. we have full control as to what is in the binary?)