Perhaps we should also change the various GeckoChildProcessHost Launch methods to accept LaunchOptions or a similar structure instead of aExtraOpts.
On Wednesday, 14 February 2018 09:23:05 UTC, bo...@mozilla.com wrote: > Hi Nick, > > SandboxBroker::AddHandleToShare was added to add the handles to the sandbox > policy, before it was realised that we'd need to do this for the > non-sandboxed process launch as well, hence LaunchOptions::handles_to_inherit. > > I think we should change  to pass the LaunchOptions and then use them > within SandboxBroker::LaunchApp to add the handles to the policy and get rid > of SandboxBroker::AddHandleToShare. > > Cheers, > Bob > >  > https://searchfox.org/mozilla-central/rev/d03ad8843e3bf2e856126bc53b0475c595e5183b/ipc/glue/GeckoChildProcessHost.cpp#1046 > > On Wednesday, 14 February 2018 07:02:43 UTC, Nicholas Nethercote wrote: > > Hi, > > > > When a content process is started, a bunch of pref values are sent via > > some -intPrefs/-boolPrefs/-stringPrefs arguments on the command line. This > > is > > ugly and limiting and causes multiple problems, so I'd like to find a > > different > > way to send this data. > > > > The use case is pretty simple, because it's one way data transfer. The > > important thing is that it must happen very early, i.e. before the normal > > IPC > > mechanism gets going. > > > > I figured shared memory would be a reasonable way to do this, something like > > the following. > > > > - The parent sets up a shared memory segment, and writes some data to it. > > > > - The parent spawns the child, and passes identifying information about the > > shared memory segment to the child (e.g. via the command line). > > > > - The child gets the shared memory segment identifer, uses it to open the > > segment, and reads the data. > > > > - The child disposes of the shared memory segment. > > > > At first I tried using NSPR's shared memory functions, but they're not used > > anywhere else in Firefox, and they have bugs, and shmget() is blocked by the > > Linux sandbox. > > > > So then I tried using base::SharedMemory instead, from > > ipc/chromium/src/base/shared_memory.h, basically like this: > > > > Parent: > > SharedMemory shm; > > shm.Create(name, size); > > shm.Open(); > > shm.Map(); > > char* p = shm.memory(); > > ... write data to p ... > > ... launch child process, passing `name` via cmdline ... > > shm.Unmap(); // done automatically when shm is destroyed > > shm.Close(); // done automatically when shm is destroyed > > > > Child: > > ... get `name` from the command line... > > SharedMemory shm; > > shm.Open(name); > > shm.Map(); > > char* p = shm.memory(); > > ... read data from p ... > > shm.Delete(); // this is a no-op on Windows > > shm.Unmap(); // done automatically when shm is destroyed > > shm.Close(); // done automatically when shm is destroyed > > > > This works fine on Unix. If the shared memory file is closed by the parent > > before it's opened by the child, that's ok, because it persists until it is > > explicitly deleted. > > > > But it doesn't work on Windows. On Windows Delete() does nothing. Instead, a > > file mapping object is auto-deleted when its refcount falls to zero. So if > > the > > parent calls Close() before the child calls Open() -- which happens in > > practice -- then the file mapping object is auto-deleted and the child > > Open() > > fails. > > > > If I change the parent to heap-allocate `shm` so it's not auto-destroyed at > > the > > end of the function, things work out, but we'll end up with leaks: the > > SharedMemory object, opened file view, the handle, and the file mapping will > > all leak. > > > > I then tried using SharedMemory::ShareToProcess(), but that requires that > > the > > child process already exist and the parent has its PID, which is a pain. > > > > I then found this blog post from Raymond Chen: > > https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/oldnewthing/20031211-00/?p=41543 > > > > It describes exactly what I want, but it requires using the bInheritHandle > > parameter, which base::SharedMemory doesn't do. I could change it to do so, > > but > > then it looks like I'd need to deal with I then found > > LaunchOptions::handles_to_inherit as well... and at this point I figure it's > > worth asking for help! > > > > Does anybody have suggestions about the best way to do this? Thanks. > > > > Nick _______________________________________________ dev-platform mailing list firstname.lastname@example.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform