Chrome browser process DLL blacklist.

chrome_elf/blacklist.gypi

Index: chrome_elf/blacklist.gypi
diff --git a/chrome_elf/blacklist.gypi b/chrome_elf/blacklist.gypi
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..5a34fceaaca894ddbf1d96002f74db7f4edb81f1
--- /dev/null
+++ b/chrome_elf/blacklist.gypi
@@ -0,0 +1,56 @@
+# Copyright 2013 The Chromium Authors. All rights reserved.
+# Use of this source code is governed by a BSD-style license that can be
+# found in the LICENSE file.
+{
+  'targets': [
+    {
+      'target_name': 'blacklist',
+      'type': 'static_library',
+      'sources': [
+        'blacklist/blacklist.cc',
+        'blacklist/blacklist.h',
+        'blacklist/blacklist_interceptions.cc',

[grt (UTC plus 2), 2013/12/16 23:33:49]

this appears to depend on stuff in base. please add an explicit dependency on
base to this target.

[robertshield, 2013/12/17 03:43:04]

This was explicitly not done to ensure no dependencies on base that would
involve pulling in compilation units that themselves pull in undesirable
dependencies. The three things being depended on are:

1) basictypes.h
2) string16.h
3) pe_image.h/pe_image.cc

1 and 2 are only header files on windows, 3 is defined in base_static which is
now depended on.

If 1) or 2) are ever refactored in such a way that this changes, chrome_elf
*should* break. Added comments here and in the .cc file to this effect.

+        'blacklist/blacklist_interceptions.h',
+      ],
+      'dependencies': [
+        '../sandbox/sandbox.gyp:sandbox',
+      ],
+    },
+    {
+      'target_name': 'blacklist_test_main_dll',
+      'type': 'shared_library',
+      'sources': [
+        'blacklist/test/blacklist_test_main_dll.cc',
+        'blacklist/test/blacklist_test_main_dll.def',
+      ],
+      'dependencies': [
+        '../base/base.gyp:base',
+        'blacklist',
+      ],
+    },
+    {
+      'target_name': 'blacklist_test_dll_1',
+      'type': 'shared_library',

[grt (UTC plus 2), 2013/12/16 23:33:49]

it looks like this dll and the next are only loaded dynamically. should they not
be loadable_module targets like the third?

[robertshield, 2013/12/17 03:43:04]

Done.

+      'sources': [
+        'blacklist/test/blacklist_test_dll_1.cc',
+        'blacklist/test/blacklist_test_dll_1.def',
+      ],
+    },
+    {
+      'target_name': 'blacklist_test_dll_2',
+      'type': 'shared_library',
+      'sources': [
+        'blacklist/test/blacklist_test_dll_2.cc',
+        'blacklist/test/blacklist_test_dll_2.def',
+      ],
+    },
+    {
+      'target_name': 'blacklist_test_dll_3',
+      'type': 'loadable_module',
+      'sources': [
+        'blacklist/test/blacklist_test_dll_3.cc',
+      ],
+    },
+  ],
+}
+