Rework target process creation to minimize creation routes

Rework target process creation to minimize creation routes
Changes the creation strategy for the target process to minimize the
differences between the "normal" process creation and the appcontainer
process creation. The hope is this minimization might remedy the failure
to initialize the process when appcontainer is being used on win8+

BUG=467920
Committed: https://crrev.com/b03f16d1deeb064a32044bec7333457b02aee1be
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#353752}

[forshaw, 2015-08-20 10:34:49]

forshaw@chromium.org changed reviewers:
+ jschuh@chromium.org, wfh@chromium.org

[forshaw, 2015-08-20 10:34:50]

Could you take a look at this patch to minimize the differences between
restricted and lowbox process creation. 

@wfh as discussed I guess this best to be committed until we have better crash
analysis for process creation failures. 

@jschuh as you mentioned it I could also remove the token cache in this patch if
you think that would be worthwhile. It would simplify the patch slightly.

[forshaw, 2015-09-17 09:01:14]

Patchset #4 (id:60001) has been deleted

[forshaw, 2015-09-17 09:01:21]

Patchset #2 (id:20001) has been deleted

[forshaw, 2015-09-17 09:01:31]

Patchset #3 (id:80001) has been deleted

[forshaw, 2015-10-12 11:43:46]

Patchset #4 (id:120001) has been deleted

[forshaw, 2015-10-12 11:47:01]

Patchset #4 (id:140001) has been deleted

[forshaw, 2015-10-12 19:32:01]

PTAL, I've rebased for the latest changes with the token cache removed. With
wfh@ being away if jschuh@ you're around please review.

[jschuh, 2015-10-13 06:28:58]

Generally looks good, but all those "after_create" names make my eyes bleed. I
know you're just following the existing names, but it looks like that token is
always going to be a lowbox token. So, how about using "lowbox" and
"lowbox_token" as appropriate?

[forshaw, 2015-10-13 10:48:19]

On 2015/10/13 06:28:58, jschuh (very slow) wrote:
> Generally looks good, but all those "after_create" names make my eyes bleed. I
> know you're just following the existing names, but it looks like that token is
> always going to be a lowbox token. So, how about using "lowbox" and
> "lowbox_token" as appropriate?

Agreed. PTAL as I've done the renaming. Thanks.

[jschuh, 2015-10-13 14:23:39]

lgtm

[forshaw, 2015-10-13 14:25:54]

On 2015/10/13 14:23:39, jschuh (very slow) wrote:
> lgtm

Thanks very much for the review jschuh@

[forshaw, 2015-10-13 14:26:01]

The CQ bit was checked by forshaw@chromium.org

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2015-10-13 14:28:46]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/patch-status/1263603002/180001
View timeline at
 https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/patch-timeline/1263603002/180001

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2015-10-13 15:00:54]

Committed patchset #5 (id:180001)

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2015-10-13 15:02:01]

Patchset 5 (id:??) landed as
https://crrev.com/b03f16d1deeb064a32044bec7333457b02aee1be
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#353752}