components/autofill/content/common/autofill_param_traits_macros.h - Issue 139253004: Add the database field to require additional auth for autofilling passwords.

Side by Side Diff: components/autofill/content/common/autofill_param_traits_macros.h

Issue 139253004: Add the database field to require additional auth for autofilling passwords. (Closed) Base URL: svn://svn.chromium.org/chrome/trunk/src

Patch Set: Created 6 years, 10 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 | Annotate | Revision Log

« no previous file with comments | « no previous file | components/autofill/content/renderer/password_form_conversion_utils.cc » ('j') | no next file with comments »

OLD	NEW
1 // Copyright 2013 The Chromium Authors. All rights reserved.	1 // Copyright 2013 The Chromium Authors. All rights reserved.

2 // Use of this source code is governed by a BSD-style license that can be	2 // Use of this source code is governed by a BSD-style license that can be

3 // found in the LICENSE file.	3 // found in the LICENSE file.

4	4

5 // Singly or multiply-included shared traits file depending on circumstances.	5 // Singly or multiply-included shared traits file depending on circumstances.

6 // This allows the use of Autofill IPC serialization macros in more than one IPC	6 // This allows the use of Autofill IPC serialization macros in more than one IPC

7 // message file.	7 // message file.

8 #ifndef COMPONENTS_AUTOFILL_CONTENT_COMMON_AUTOFILL_PARAM_TRAITS_MACROS_H_	8 #ifndef COMPONENTS_AUTOFILL_CONTENT_COMMON_AUTOFILL_PARAM_TRAITS_MACROS_H_

9 #define COMPONENTS_AUTOFILL_CONTENT_COMMON_AUTOFILL_PARAM_TRAITS_MACROS_H_	9 #define COMPONENTS_AUTOFILL_CONTENT_COMMON_AUTOFILL_PARAM_TRAITS_MACROS_H_

10	10

(...skipping 23 matching lines...) Expand all Loading...
34 IPC_STRUCT_TRAITS_MEMBER(password_element)	34 IPC_STRUCT_TRAITS_MEMBER(password_element)

35 IPC_STRUCT_TRAITS_MEMBER(password_value)	35 IPC_STRUCT_TRAITS_MEMBER(password_value)

36 IPC_STRUCT_TRAITS_MEMBER(password_autocomplete_set)	36 IPC_STRUCT_TRAITS_MEMBER(password_autocomplete_set)

37 IPC_STRUCT_TRAITS_MEMBER(old_password_element)	37 IPC_STRUCT_TRAITS_MEMBER(old_password_element)

38 IPC_STRUCT_TRAITS_MEMBER(old_password_value)	38 IPC_STRUCT_TRAITS_MEMBER(old_password_value)

39 IPC_STRUCT_TRAITS_MEMBER(ssl_valid)	39 IPC_STRUCT_TRAITS_MEMBER(ssl_valid)

40 IPC_STRUCT_TRAITS_MEMBER(preferred)	40 IPC_STRUCT_TRAITS_MEMBER(preferred)

41 IPC_STRUCT_TRAITS_MEMBER(blacklisted_by_user)	41 IPC_STRUCT_TRAITS_MEMBER(blacklisted_by_user)

42 IPC_STRUCT_TRAITS_MEMBER(type)	42 IPC_STRUCT_TRAITS_MEMBER(type)

43 IPC_STRUCT_TRAITS_MEMBER(times_used)	43 IPC_STRUCT_TRAITS_MEMBER(times_used)

	44 IPC_STRUCT_TRAITS_MEMBER(use_additional_authentication)
	Ilya Sherman 2014/02/08 01:12:21 Why does this need to be passed across IPC? Seems Why does this need to be passed across IPC? Seems like a purely browser-process bit of info. Ted C 2014/02/08 01:16:17 No direct need. I did it more out of completeness Show quoted text On 2014/02/08 01:12:21, Ilya Sherman (catching up...) wrote: > Why does this need to be passed across IPC? Seems like a purely browser-process > bit of info. No direct need. I did it more out of completeness. I can definitely revert this bit. Ted C 2014/02/10 18:51:32 Updated the change and removed this bit. Show quoted text On 2014/02/08 01:16:17, Ted C wrote: > On 2014/02/08 01:12:21, Ilya Sherman (catching up...) wrote: > > Why does this need to be passed across IPC? Seems like a purely > browser-process > > bit of info. > > No direct need. I did it more out of completeness. I can definitely revert > this bit. Updated the change and removed this bit. Ilya Sherman 2014/02/10 23:32:54 Hmm, I'm not sure that it's safe to just remove th Show quoted text On 2014/02/10 18:51:32, Ted C wrote: > On 2014/02/08 01:16:17, Ted C wrote: > > On 2014/02/08 01:12:21, Ilya Sherman (catching up...) wrote: > > > Why does this need to be passed across IPC? Seems like a purely > > browser-process > > > bit of info. > > > > No direct need. I did it more out of completeness. I can definitely revert > > this bit. > > Updated the change and removed this bit. Hmm, I'm not sure that it's safe to just remove this change, while still tweaking the underlying struct. My question is: Why does this need to be part of the struct that's used for communicating over IPC? To save time, if the answer is that it's a royal PITA to put this anywhere else, then please make really sure you know what you're doing in terms of IPC. Is it actually safe to omit the struct member? Or is there a way to include the struct member, but always clear it when sending the IPC, so that no information is leaked to the renderer process?
44 IPC_STRUCT_TRAITS_MEMBER(form_data)	45 IPC_STRUCT_TRAITS_MEMBER(form_data)

45 IPC_STRUCT_TRAITS_END()	46 IPC_STRUCT_TRAITS_END()

46	47

47 #endif // COMPONENTS_AUTOFILL_CONTENT_COMMON_AUTOFILL_PARAM_TRAITS_MACROS_H_	48 #endif // COMPONENTS_AUTOFILL_CONTENT_COMMON_AUTOFILL_PARAM_TRAITS_MACROS_H_

OLD	NEW