Don't create ServiceWorkerProviderHost for sandboxed frames without allow-same-origin flag.

Don't create ServiceWorkerProviderHost for sandboxed frames without allow-same-origin flag.

If the frame is a sandboxed iframe without "allow-same-origin" flag, the request from the frame should not be handled by the ServiceWorker.
And the frame should not be controlled by any ServiceWorker even if the url of the frame is in a ServiceWorker's scope and "clients.claim()" is called inside the ServiceWorker.

To do so, this cl introduces a new ServiceWorkerProviderType for sandboxed iframes named SERVICE_WORKER_PROVIDER_FOR_SANDBOXED_FRAME.
If the frame is sandboxed:
 - Create ServiceWorkerNetworkProvider with SERVICE_WORKER_PROVIDER_FOR_SANDBOXED_FRAME type.
 - Don't create ServiceWorkerProviderContext.
 - Don't send ServiceWorkerHostMsg_ProviderCreated message to the browser process.
 - Don't create ServiceWorkerProviderHost in the browser process.

This CL depends on the blink side patches.
 https://codereview.chromium.org/1197383002/
 https://codereview.chromium.org/1199183002/

BUG=486308
TEST=layout test which will be added in https://codereview.chromium.org/1208693003

Committed: https://crrev.com/ec2c1c8707b7d2fe6b236a745b76c19a404b1ec6
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#336089}

[horo, 2015-06-23 10:16:48]

Patchset #1 (id:1) has been deleted

[horo, 2015-06-23 10:17:11]

Patchset #1 (id:20001) has been deleted

[horo, 2015-06-23 10:17:28]

Patchset #2 (id:60001) has been deleted

[horo, 2015-06-23 10:33:43]

horo@chromium.org changed reviewers:
+ kinuko@chromium.org

[horo, 2015-06-23 10:33:44]

kinuko@
Could you please review this?

[kinuko, 2015-06-23 10:55:56]

https://codereview.chromium.org/1191293002/diff/80001/content/child/service_w...
File content/child/service_worker/service_worker_network_provider.cc (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1191293002/diff/80001/content/child/service_w...
content/child/service_worker/service_worker_network_provider.cc:43: :
GetNextProviderId()) {
nit: could this part be factored out as a static function (maybe with a bit of
comment describing why we don't assign a new ID for sandboxed frame) for
readability?

https://codereview.chromium.org/1191293002/diff/80001/content/child/service_w...
content/child/service_worker/service_worker_network_provider.cc:64:
DCHECK(provider_id_ != kInvalidServiceWorkerProviderId);
nit: DCHECK_NE

https://codereview.chromium.org/1191293002/diff/80001/content/child/service_w...
File content/child/service_worker/web_service_worker_provider_impl.cc (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1191293002/diff/80001/content/child/service_w...
content/child/service_worker/web_service_worker_provider_impl.cc:37: if
(!context_)
Can we add a comment about when context_ is null, maybe in the header file?

https://codereview.chromium.org/1191293002/diff/80001/content/child/service_w...
content/child/service_worker/web_service_worker_provider_impl.cc:59: return;
Hmm, we'll leak callbacks.  Also is it ok not to fire it?

[horo, 2015-06-23 12:30:21]

Patchset #3 (id:100001) has been deleted

[horo, 2015-06-23 13:55:14]

https://codereview.chromium.org/1191293002/diff/80001/content/child/service_w...
File content/child/service_worker/service_worker_network_provider.cc (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1191293002/diff/80001/content/child/service_w...
content/child/service_worker/service_worker_network_provider.cc:43: :
GetNextProviderId()) {
On 2015/06/23 10:55:56, kinuko wrote:
> nit: could this part be factored out as a static function (maybe with a bit of
> comment describing why we don't assign a new ID for sandboxed frame) for
> readability?

Done.

https://codereview.chromium.org/1191293002/diff/80001/content/child/service_w...
content/child/service_worker/service_worker_network_provider.cc:64:
DCHECK(provider_id_ != kInvalidServiceWorkerProviderId);
On 2015/06/23 10:55:56, kinuko wrote:
> nit: DCHECK_NE

Done.

https://codereview.chromium.org/1191293002/diff/80001/content/child/service_w...
File content/child/service_worker/web_service_worker_provider_impl.cc (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1191293002/diff/80001/content/child/service_w...
content/child/service_worker/web_service_worker_provider_impl.cc:37: if
(!context_)
On 2015/06/23 10:55:56, kinuko wrote:
> Can we add a comment about when context_ is null, maybe in the header file?

After https://codereview.chromium.org/1199183002/, WebServiceWorkerProviderImpl
will not be created for the sandboxed iframe.
So I added DCHECK(context_); in the constructor.

https://codereview.chromium.org/1191293002/diff/80001/content/child/service_w...
content/child/service_worker/web_service_worker_provider_impl.cc:59: return;
On 2015/06/23 10:55:56, kinuko wrote:
> Hmm, we'll leak callbacks.  Also is it ok not to fire it?

Same as the former

[kinuko, 2015-06-23 14:18:55]

lgtm

[horo, 2015-06-24 22:50:29]

The CQ bit was checked by horo@chromium.org

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2015-06-24 22:52:22]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/patch-status/1191293002/120001

[horo, 2015-06-24 22:58:29]

The CQ bit was unchecked by horo@chromium.org

[horo, 2015-06-25 03:44:57]

The CQ bit was checked by horo@chromium.org

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2015-06-25 03:45:11]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/patch-status/1191293002/120001

[horo, 2015-06-25 03:59:13]

The CQ bit was unchecked by horo@chromium.org

[horo, 2015-06-25 04:00:53]

The CQ bit was checked by horo@chromium.org

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2015-06-25 04:01:00]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/patch-status/1191293002/120001

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2015-06-25 04:12:06]

Committed patchset #3 (id:120001)

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2015-06-25 04:12:59]

Patchset 3 (id:??) landed as
https://crrev.com/ec2c1c8707b7d2fe6b236a745b76c19a404b1ec6
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#336089}