Plumb document's strict mixed content checking for RemoteFrames

content/browser/frame_host/render_frame_host_manager_unittest.cc

Index: content/browser/frame_host/render_frame_host_manager_unittest.cc
diff --git a/content/browser/frame_host/render_frame_host_manager_unittest.cc b/content/browser/frame_host/render_frame_host_manager_unittest.cc
index 8c157958e09a419cd9cc30454cbc74fee1cfe436..209f2b12c75c0469dff7df557e7bd756b2940ec8 100644
--- a/content/browser/frame_host/render_frame_host_manager_unittest.cc
+++ b/content/browser/frame_host/render_frame_host_manager_unittest.cc
@@ -3143,4 +3143,82 @@ TEST_F(RenderFrameHostManagerTestWithBrowserSideNavigation,
   EXPECT_FALSE(manager->GetNavigatingWebUI());
 }
 
+namespace {
+
+// Helper function for strict mixed content checking tests.
+void CheckMixedContentIPC(TestRenderFrameHost* rfh, bool expected_param) {

[alexmos, 2015/12/11 02:52:27]

nit: maybe put this on top in the existing anonymous namespace, after
VerifyPageFocusMessage which is kind of similar, or use a lambda to keep it in
the test's body.

[estark, 2015/12/12 01:35:43]

Done.

+  const IPC::Message* message =
+      rfh->GetProcess()->sink().GetUniqueMessageMatching(
+          FrameMsg_DidUpdateShouldEnforceStrictMixedContentChecking::ID);
+  ASSERT_TRUE(message);

[alexmos, 2015/12/11 02:52:27]

Could we also verify that the message's routing ID corresponds to the right
proxy?  See VerifyPageFocusMessage for an example of how to get routing IDs for
proxies.

[estark, 2015/12/12 01:35:43]

Done.

+  FrameMsg_DidUpdateShouldEnforceStrictMixedContentChecking::Param params;
+  EXPECT_TRUE(FrameMsg_DidUpdateShouldEnforceStrictMixedContentChecking::Read(
+      message, &params));
+  EXPECT_EQ(expected_param, base::get<0>(params));
+  rfh->GetProcess()->sink().ClearMessages();
+}
+
+}  // namespace
+
+// Tests that frame proxies receive updates when a frame's enforcement
+// of strict mixed content checking changes.
+TEST_F(RenderFrameHostManagerTestWithSiteIsolation,
+       ProxiesReceiveShouldEnforceStrictMixedContentChecking) {
+  const GURL kUrl1("http://www.google.test");
+  const GURL kUrl2("http://www.google2.test");
+  const GURL kUrl3("http://www.google2.test/foo");
+
+  contents()->NavigateAndCommit(kUrl1);
+
+  // Create a child frame and navigate it cross-site.
+  main_test_rfh()->OnCreateChildFrame(
+      main_test_rfh()->GetProcess()->GetNextRoutingID(),
+      blink::WebTreeScopeType::Document, "frame1", blink::WebSandboxFlags::None,
+      blink::WebFrameOwnerProperties());
+
+  FrameTreeNode* root = contents()->GetFrameTree()->root();
+  RenderFrameHostManager* child = root->child_at(0)->render_manager();
+
+  // Navigate subframe to kUrl2.
+  NavigationEntryImpl entry1(nullptr /* instance */, -1 /* page_id */, kUrl2,
+                             Referrer(kUrl1, blink::WebReferrerPolicyDefault),
+                             base::string16() /* title */,
+                             ui::PAGE_TRANSITION_LINK,
+                             false /* is_renderer_init */);
+  TestRenderFrameHost* child_host =
+      static_cast<TestRenderFrameHost*>(NavigateToEntry(child, entry1));
+  child->DidNavigateFrame(child_host, true);
+
+  // Verify that parent and child are in different processes.
+  EXPECT_NE(child_host->GetProcess(), main_test_rfh()->GetProcess());
+
+  // Change the parent's enforcement of strict mixed content checking,
+  // and check that the correct IPC is sent to the child frame's
+  // process.
+  main_test_rfh()->OnDidEnforceStrictMixedContentChecking();

[alexmos, 2015/12/11 02:52:27]

Can we also check that the bit in the corresponding replication_state is
correct?

[estark, 2015/12/12 01:35:43]

Done.

+  ASSERT_NO_FATAL_FAILURE(CheckMixedContentIPC(child_host, true));
+
+  // Do the same for the child's enforcement.
+  child_host->OnDidEnforceStrictMixedContentChecking();
+  ASSERT_NO_FATAL_FAILURE(CheckMixedContentIPC(main_test_rfh(), true));

[alexmos, 2015/12/11 02:52:27]

It might be good to document somewhere (here?) why a parent frame's process
might need to know a child frame's strict mixed content flag.  Am I correct that
it would be needed if we did A-embed-B, B sets the flag, then B embeds another
A?  We would need the flag in process A to properly inherit it for the new
grandchild.

[estark, 2015/12/12 01:35:43]

Yeah, that sounds right. Added a comment here.

+
+  // Check that the flag for the parent's proxy to the child is reset
+  // when the child navigates within the same process.
+  main_test_rfh()->GetProcess()->sink().ClearMessages();

[alexmos, 2015/12/11 02:52:27]

nit: CheckMixedContentIPC also clears messages in its last line - remove it from
there to keep it side-effect-free?

[estark, 2015/12/12 01:35:43]

Done.

+  FrameHostMsg_DidCommitProvisionalLoad_Params commit_params;
+  commit_params.page_id = 0;
+  commit_params.nav_entry_id = 0;
+  commit_params.did_create_new_entry = false;
+  commit_params.url = kUrl3;
+  commit_params.transition = ui::PAGE_TRANSITION_AUTO_SUBFRAME;
+  commit_params.should_update_history = false;
+  commit_params.gesture = NavigationGestureAuto;
+  commit_params.was_within_same_page = false;
+  commit_params.is_post = false;
+  commit_params.page_state = PageState::CreateFromURL(kUrl3);
+  commit_params.should_enforce_strict_mixed_content_checking = false;
+  child_host->SendNavigateWithParams(&commit_params);

[alexmos, 2015/12/11 02:52:27]

Similarly, can we check that the replication state bit was reset after this?

[estark, 2015/12/12 01:35:43]

Done.

+  ASSERT_NO_FATAL_FAILURE(CheckMixedContentIPC(main_test_rfh(), false));
+}
+
 }  // namespace content