Add the database field to require additional auth for autofilling passwords.

components/autofill/content/common/autofill_param_traits_macros.h

Index: components/autofill/content/common/autofill_param_traits_macros.h
diff --git a/components/autofill/content/common/autofill_param_traits_macros.h b/components/autofill/content/common/autofill_param_traits_macros.h
index 1cf4b099e5312f2d307638da63c27134338be120..dd4e1303e1e054391511983f339a3993a830c561 100644
--- a/components/autofill/content/common/autofill_param_traits_macros.h
+++ b/components/autofill/content/common/autofill_param_traits_macros.h
@@ -41,6 +41,7 @@ IPC_STRUCT_TRAITS_BEGIN(autofill::PasswordForm)
   IPC_STRUCT_TRAITS_MEMBER(blacklisted_by_user)
   IPC_STRUCT_TRAITS_MEMBER(type)
   IPC_STRUCT_TRAITS_MEMBER(times_used)
+  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 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.  I can definitely revert
this bit.

[Ted C, 2014/02/10 18:51:32]

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 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?

   IPC_STRUCT_TRAITS_MEMBER(form_data)
 IPC_STRUCT_TRAITS_END()