Chromium Code Reviews
chromiumcodereview-hr@appspot.gserviceaccount.com (chromiumcodereview-hr) | Please choose your nickname with Settings | Help | Chromium Project | Gerrit Changes | Sign out
(723)

Side by Side Diff: Source/core/frame/csp/ContentSecurityPolicy.cpp

Issue 1302363004: CSP: Suppress violation reports for extension resources. (Closed) Base URL: https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/blink.git@master
Patch Set: Created 5 years, 3 months ago
Use n/p to move between diff chunks; N/P to move between comments. Draft comments are only viewable by you.
Jump to:
View unified diff | Download patch
« no previous file with comments | « no previous file | no next file » | no next file with comments »
Toggle Intra-line Diffs ('i') | Expand Comments ('e') | Collapse Comments ('c') | Show Comments Hide Comments ('s')
OLDNEW
1 /* 1 /*
2 * Copyright (C) 2011 Google, Inc. All rights reserved. 2 * Copyright (C) 2011 Google, Inc. All rights reserved.
3 * 3 *
4 * Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without 4 * Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
5 * modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions 5 * modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions
6 * are met: 6 * are met:
7 * 1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright 7 * 1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright
8 * notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer. 8 * notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
9 * 2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright 9 * 2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright
10 * notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the 10 * notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the
(...skipping 725 matching lines...) Expand 10 before | Expand all | Expand 10 after
736 return; 736 return;
737 737
738 SecurityPolicyViolationEventInit violationData; 738 SecurityPolicyViolationEventInit violationData;
739 gatherSecurityPolicyViolationEventData(violationData, document, directiveTex t, effectiveDirective, blockedURL, header); 739 gatherSecurityPolicyViolationEventData(violationData, document, directiveTex t, effectiveDirective, blockedURL, header);
740 740
741 frame->localDOMWindow()->enqueueDocumentEvent(SecurityPolicyViolationEvent:: create(EventTypeNames::securitypolicyviolation, violationData)); 741 frame->localDOMWindow()->enqueueDocumentEvent(SecurityPolicyViolationEvent:: create(EventTypeNames::securitypolicyviolation, violationData));
742 742
743 if (reportEndpoints.isEmpty()) 743 if (reportEndpoints.isEmpty())
744 return; 744 return;
745 745
746 // TODO(mkwst): Obviously, we shouldn't hit this check, as extension-loaded
747 // resources should be allowed regardless. We apparently do, however, so
748 // we should at least stop spamming reporting endpoints. See
749 // https://crbug.com/524356 for detail.
750 if (!violationData.sourceFile().isEmpty() && SchemeRegistry::schemeShouldByp assContentSecurityPolicy(violationData.sourceFile().protocol())
Mike West 2015/09/09 09:18:18 Ha, I'm an idiot. Pretend that this reads `KURL(Pa
751 return;
752
746 // We need to be careful here when deciding what information to send to the 753 // We need to be careful here when deciding what information to send to the
747 // report-uri. Currently, we send only the current document's URL and the 754 // report-uri. Currently, we send only the current document's URL and the
748 // directive that was violated. The document's URL is safe to send because 755 // directive that was violated. The document's URL is safe to send because
749 // it's the document itself that's requesting that it be sent. You could 756 // it's the document itself that's requesting that it be sent. You could
750 // make an argument that we shouldn't send HTTPS document URLs to HTTP 757 // make an argument that we shouldn't send HTTPS document URLs to HTTP
751 // report-uris (for the same reasons that we supress the Referer in that 758 // report-uris (for the same reasons that we supress the Referer in that
752 // case), but the Referer is sent implicitly whereas this request is only 759 // case), but the Referer is sent implicitly whereas this request is only
753 // sent explicitly. As for which directive was violated, that's pretty 760 // sent explicitly. As for which directive was violated, that's pretty
754 // harmless information. 761 // harmless information.
755 762
(...skipping 252 matching lines...) Expand 10 before | Expand all | Expand 10 after
1008 // Collisions have no security impact, so we can save space by storing only the string's hash rather than the whole report. 1015 // Collisions have no security impact, so we can save space by storing only the string's hash rather than the whole report.
1009 return !m_violationReportsSent.contains(report.impl()->hash()); 1016 return !m_violationReportsSent.contains(report.impl()->hash());
1010 } 1017 }
1011 1018
1012 void ContentSecurityPolicy::didSendViolationReport(const String& report) 1019 void ContentSecurityPolicy::didSendViolationReport(const String& report)
1013 { 1020 {
1014 m_violationReportsSent.add(report.impl()->hash()); 1021 m_violationReportsSent.add(report.impl()->hash());
1015 } 1022 }
1016 1023
1017 } // namespace blink 1024 } // namespace blink
OLDNEW
« no previous file with comments | « no previous file | no next file » | no next file with comments »

Powered by Google App Engine
This is Rietveld 408576698