Switch //chrome functions to use SchemeIsCryptographic() instead of SchemeIsSecure().

Switch //chrome functions to use SchemeIsCryptographic() instead of SchemeIsSecure().

palmer@ recently introduced SchemeIsCryptographic() and
IsOriginSecure(), which are meant to replace SchemeIsSecure().

IsOriginSecure() roughly means "do we trust this content not to be
tampered with before it reaches the user?" [1] This is a higher-level
definition that corresponds to the new "privileged contexts" spec. [2]

SchemeIsCryptographic() [3] is close to the old definition of
SchemeIsSecure(), and literally just checks if the scheme is a
cryptographic scheme (HTTPS or WSS as of right now). The difference is
that SchemeIsCryptographic() will not consider filesystem URLs secure.

[1] https://code.google.com/p/chromium/codesearch#chromium/src/content/public/common/origin_util.h&sq=package:chromium&type=cs&l=19&rcl=143099866
[2] https://www.chromium.org/Home/chromium-security/prefer-secure-origins-for-powerful-new-features and https://w3c.github.io/webappsec/specs/powerfulfeatures/
[3]  https://code.google.com/p/chromium/codesearch#chromium/src/url/gurl.h&sq=package:chromium&type=cs&l=250&rcl=1430998666

BUG=362214
Committed: https://crrev.com/7b70d593c20676a7b2656684416a1be1f50a167a
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#329313}

[lgarron, 2015-05-07 22:53:44]

lgarron@chromium.org changed reviewers:
+ jochen@chromium.org, pkasting@chromium.org, rockot@chromium.org,
rogerta@chromium.org, samarth@chromium.org

[lgarron, 2015-05-07 22:53:45]

Welcome to my Smörgåsbord CR! Would you fine Chrome folks mind reviewing the
following? (See the CR description for the semantics.)

rockot@: chrome/browser/extensions/updater/extension_updater_unittest.cc
samarth@: chrome/browser/search/search.cc
rogerta@: chrome/browser/signin/signin_header_helper.cc
pkasting@: chrome/browser/ui/toolbar/toolbar_model_unittest.cc
jochen@ (for LGTM) and jiayl@ (who authored):
chrome/renderer/chrome_content_renderer_client.cc

https://codereview.chromium.org/1131493004/diff/1/chrome/browser/signin/signi...
File chrome/browser/signin/signin_header_helper.cc (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1131493004/diff/1/chrome/browser/signin/signi...
chrome/browser/signin/signin_header_helper.cc:176: if
(!url.SchemeIsCryptographic())
This seems a bit redundant, considering we're directly comparing against URLs
below. Would you like to keep this as a sanity check, rogerta@?

https://codereview.chromium.org/1131493004/diff/1/chrome/renderer/chrome_cont...
File chrome/renderer/chrome_content_renderer_client.cc (left):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1131493004/diff/1/chrome/renderer/chrome_cont...
chrome/renderer/chrome_content_renderer_client.cc:1040:
app_url.SchemeIs("https") &&
jiayl@: The definition of is_photo_app above checks (app_url.SchemeIs("https")
&& manifest_url.SchemeIs("https").
Would you have any concerns about changing them all to SchemeIsCryptographic()?

[Peter Kasting, 2015-05-07 22:54:45]

LGTM

[Ken Rockot(use gerrit already), 2015-05-07 22:58:50]

lgtm

[jochen (gone - plz use gerrit), 2015-05-08 17:14:21]

https://codereview.chromium.org/1131493004/diff/1/chrome/renderer/chrome_cont...
File chrome/renderer/chrome_content_renderer_client.cc (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1131493004/diff/1/chrome/renderer/chrome_cont...
chrome/renderer/chrome_content_renderer_client.cc:1040:
app_url.SchemeIs("https") && manifest_url.SchemeIsCryptographic() &&
why not app_url.SchemeIsCryptographic() ?

[jiayl, 2015-05-08 21:23:40]

jiayl@chromium.org changed reviewers:
+ jiayl@chromium.org

[jiayl, 2015-05-08 21:23:41]

https://codereview.chromium.org/1131493004/diff/1/chrome/renderer/chrome_cont...
File chrome/renderer/chrome_content_renderer_client.cc (left):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1131493004/diff/1/chrome/renderer/chrome_cont...
chrome/renderer/chrome_content_renderer_client.cc:1040:
app_url.SchemeIs("https") &&
On 2015/05/07 22:53:45, lgarron wrote:
> jiayl@: The definition of is_photo_app above checks (app_url.SchemeIs("https")
> && manifest_url.SchemeIs("https").
> Would you have any concerns about changing them all to
SchemeIsCryptographic()?

Sounds good to me

[samarth, 2015-05-08 21:27:38]

lgtm

[lgarron, 2015-05-08 21:48:40]

https://codereview.chromium.org/1131493004/diff/1/chrome/renderer/chrome_cont...
File chrome/renderer/chrome_content_renderer_client.cc (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1131493004/diff/1/chrome/renderer/chrome_cont...
chrome/renderer/chrome_content_renderer_client.cc:1040:
app_url.SchemeIs("https") && manifest_url.SchemeIsCryptographic() &&
On 2015/05/08 17:14:21, jochen (traveling) wrote:
> why not app_url.SchemeIsCryptographic() ?

Updated in the second patch per jiayl@'s pseudo-lgtm (in the other comment in
this file).

[Roger Tawa OOO till Jul 10th, 2015-05-11 17:44:14]

signin lgtm

[palmer, 2015-05-11 18:55:48]

The CQ bit was checked by palmer@chromium.org

[palmer, 2015-05-11 18:55:49]

The patchset sent to the CQ was uploaded after l-g-t-m from rockot@chromium.org,
pkasting@chromium.org, samarth@chromium.org
Link to the patchset: https://codereview.chromium.org/1131493004/#ps20001
(title: "Update a few calls from SchemeIs("https") to SchemeIsCryptographic()")

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2015-05-11 18:57:33]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/patch-status/1131493004/20001

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2015-05-11 19:06:57]

The CQ bit was unchecked by commit-bot@chromium.org

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2015-05-11 19:06:59]

Try jobs failed on following builders:
  chromium_presubmit on tryserver.chromium.linux (JOB_FAILED,
http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium.linux/builders/chromium_presub...)
  linux_chromium_gn_dbg on tryserver.chromium.linux (JOB_FAILED,
http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium.linux/builders/linux_chromium_...)
  linux_chromium_gn_rel on tryserver.chromium.linux (JOB_FAILED,
http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium.linux/builders/linux_chromium_...)

[palmer, 2015-05-11 21:56:00]

+thakis as a replacement OWNER for jochen: can you please take a look at
chrome/renderer/*? Thanks!

[palmer, 2015-05-11 21:56:48]

palmer@chromium.org changed reviewers:
+ thakis@chromium.org

[palmer, 2015-05-11 21:56:49]

+thakis as a replacement OWNER for jochen: can you please take a look at
chrome/renderer/*? Thanks!

[jochen (gone - plz use gerrit), 2015-05-11 23:39:30]

lgtm

[Nico, 2015-05-12 00:03:03]

On 2015/05/11 23:39:30, jochen (traveling) wrote:
> lgtm

lgtm from replacement jochen too

[lgarron, 2015-05-12 00:03:57]

The CQ bit was checked by lgarron@chromium.org

[lgarron, 2015-05-12 00:03:57]

The patchset sent to the CQ was uploaded after l-g-t-m from rockot@chromium.org,
jochen@chromium.org, rogerta@chromium.org, samarth@chromium.org,
thakis@chromium.org, pkasting@chromium.org
Link to the patchset: https://codereview.chromium.org/1131493004/#ps40001
(title: "Use inner URL for a filesystem calculation.")

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2015-05-12 00:05:15]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/patch-status/1131493004/40001

[lgarron, 2015-05-12 00:25:03]

Patchset #3 (id:40001) has been deleted

[lgarron, 2015-05-12 00:26:24]

The CQ bit was checked by lgarron@chromium.org

[lgarron, 2015-05-12 00:26:24]

The patchset sent to the CQ was uploaded after l-g-t-m from rockot@chromium.org,
jochen@chromium.org, rogerta@chromium.org, samarth@chromium.org,
thakis@chromium.org, pkasting@chromium.org
Link to the patchset: https://codereview.chromium.org/1131493004/#ps60001
(title: "Use inner URL for a filesystem calculation.")

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2015-05-12 00:29:02]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/patch-status/1131493004/60001

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2015-05-12 02:05:10]

Committed patchset #3 (id:60001)

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2015-05-12 02:05:58]

Patchset 3 (id:??) landed as
https://crrev.com/7b70d593c20676a7b2656684416a1be1f50a167a
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#329313}