Set Ready For Review
Inspect html for hidden footers to help with email filtering. To unsubscribe visit settings. |
Adding yaoxia@ for Shared Storage OWNERS
Adding alexrudenko@ for Devtools OWNERS
Adding jbroman@ for fenced_frame_permissions_policies.h OWNERS
Adding arichiv@ for permissions_policy_features.json5 OWNERS
Adding lbrady@ for reviewing the core logic of the CL.
Inspect html for hidden footers to help with email filtering. To unsubscribe visit settings. |
Inspect html for hidden footers to help with email filtering. To unsubscribe visit settings. |
From googleclient/chrome/chromium_gwsq/ipc/config.gwsq:
IPC: ke...@chromium.org
📎 It looks like you’re making a possibly security-sensitive change! 📎 IPC security review isn’t a rubberstamp, so your friendly security reviewer will need a fair amount of context to review your CL effectively. Please review your CL description and code comments to make sure they provide context for someone unfamiliar with your project/area. Pay special attention to where data comes from and which processes it flows between (and their privilege levels). Feel free to point your security reviewer at design docs, bugs, or other links if you can’t reasonably make a self-contained CL description. (Also see https://cbea.ms/git-commit/).
IPC reviewer(s): ke...@chromium.org
Reviewer source(s):
ke...@chromium.org is from context(googleclient/chrome/chromium_gwsq/ipc/config.gwsq)
Inspect html for hidden footers to help with email filtering. To unsubscribe visit settings. |
Code-Review | +1 |
Adding iclelland@ for Permissions Policy expertise in general.
Sorry for so many reviewers, trying to balance domain expertise and OWNERs approvals.
Inspect html for hidden footers to help with email filtering. To unsubscribe visit settings. |
Core logic looks good. Just a couple test-based things.
// Runs a single test case that checks if the fenced-frame-unpartitioned-data
I think this file should either be generalized or renamed to something unpartitioned-data-specific. (Probably easier to just rename). It might be confusing since there are other permissions tests that don't use this file as a helper.
// Set sharedStorage value for HTTPS_ORIGIN
Should this be a function in the helper js file? And have the 3 files just invoke that in their `promise_setup()`?
Code-Review | +1 |
mojom lgtm
Code-Review | +1 |
// Runs a single test case that checks if the fenced-frame-unpartitioned-data
I think this file should either be generalized or renamed to something unpartitioned-data-specific. (Probably easier to just rename). It might be confusing since there are other permissions tests that don't use this file as a helper.
Renamed.
Should this be a function in the helper js file? And have the 3 files just invoke that in their `promise_setup()`?
Inspect html for hidden footers to help with email filtering. To unsubscribe visit settings. |
Code-Review | +1 |
Code-Review | +1 |
Code-Review | +1 |
Permissions policy integration LGTM, thanks!
Inspect html for hidden footers to help with email filtering. To unsubscribe visit settings. |
Implement `fenced-frame-unparititioned-data` Permissions Policy
The default value for this permission is *.
Regarding testing: The existing permissions_policy.js test framework relies on postMessage() to send test results out of the frame. Fenced frames do not have access to postMessage(), by design. I rolled my own test helper using RemoteContext instead.
Inspect html for hidden footers to help with email filtering. To unsubscribe visit settings. |