Robert O'Callahan wrote:
For those not following the WHATWG thread --- there's interest in adding
an asynchronous transactional API for localStorage, but less interest in
breaking compatibility with the existing API. There's quite a bit of
discussion about what properties the transactional API should have.
Also it seems to me that the global storage mutex can be implemented
with a per-domain mutex; we should be able to avoid all situations where
script in one domain synchronously triggers script in another domain
while holding the storage mutex.
And if someone can think of a situation *not* involving plugins (the
current spec handles that case) where script in one domain could
synchronously invoke script in another, he/she should file a bug *now*.
From what I understand this is a potentially major security hole, in
addition to a bother for storage mutex implementors.
I wonder if we shouldn't try just killing off plugins if they attempt
the sequence of events "page A call-into plugin, plugin call-into page
B." What good could come of that? (Of course it might massively break
plugins and we'd have to turn it off.) Disallowing that would make the
storage-mutex impl easier for us and better for web pages because we
wouldn't need to drop the mutex when calling into the plugin.
Cheers,
Chris
_______________________________________________
dev-tech-network mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-tech-network
