Delegate decision what site instances can be rendered in what process to chrome

chrome/browser/renderer_host/chrome_render_view_host_observer.cc

Index: chrome/browser/renderer_host/chrome_render_view_host_observer.cc
diff --git a/chrome/browser/renderer_host/chrome_render_view_host_observer.cc b/chrome/browser/renderer_host/chrome_render_view_host_observer.cc
index ada4a3b24c30d3eb7ddb71cf61d9ff64bfcb11d3..6a29d33dc3b0264bcd77508a9155c086ec46085b 100644
--- a/chrome/browser/renderer_host/chrome_render_view_host_observer.cc
+++ b/chrome/browser/renderer_host/chrome_render_view_host_observer.cc
@@ -97,6 +97,8 @@ void ChromeRenderViewHostObserver::InitRenderViewHostForExtensions() {
     render_view_host()->AllowBindings(BindingsPolicy::EXTENSION);

[Aaron Boodman, 2011/09/27 19:26:49]

I had hoped we'd be able to get rid of BindingsPolicy::EXTENSION and
ChildSecurityPolicy::GrantExtensionBindings().

Looking through the code, I'm not even sure if the RVH flag is used for anything
anymore. ExtensionFunctionDispatcher checks this in a more direct way (just by
looking at the URL).

And the process flag may be obsoleted by the stuff you just added to EPM.

[jochen (gone - plz use gerrit), 2011/09/27 20:41:40]

True, looks like we could get rid of this entirely. I'll do this in a follow-up
CL. ok?

[Aaron Boodman, 2011/09/27 20:50:53]

Actually, now that I look at this, how come we can't just reuse
RegisterExtensionSiteInstance?.

It looks like it gets called everywhere this gets called, except that it also
runs for themes. And I don't think that even matters because we actually enforce
bindings (in ExtensionFunctionDispatcher) differently.

     ChildProcessSecurityPolicy::GetInstance()->GrantExtensionBindings(
         render_view_host()->process()->id());
+    process_manager->RegisterProcessHostWithBindings(
+        render_view_host()->process()->id());
   }
 }