Plumb document's strict mixed content checking for RemoteFrames

third_party/WebKit/Source/core/frame/RemoteFrame.cpp

Index: third_party/WebKit/Source/core/frame/RemoteFrame.cpp
diff --git a/third_party/WebKit/Source/core/frame/RemoteFrame.cpp b/third_party/WebKit/Source/core/frame/RemoteFrame.cpp
index 88ba74565b4c8961e920dd91f3fc55af2e000ec8..c662fb642a6f6f1808b2db2550038330cdfce3c5 100644
--- a/third_party/WebKit/Source/core/frame/RemoteFrame.cpp
+++ b/third_party/WebKit/Source/core/frame/RemoteFrame.cpp
@@ -30,6 +30,7 @@ inline RemoteFrame::RemoteFrame(RemoteFrameClient* client, FrameHost* host, Fram
     , m_domWindow(RemoteDOMWindow::create(*this))
     , m_windowProxyManager(WindowProxyManager::create(*this))
     , m_remotePlatformLayer(nullptr)
+    , m_shouldEnforceStrictMixedContentChecking(false)

[alexmos, 2015/12/03 20:43:26]

Would it make sense to store m_shouldEnforceStrictMixedContentChecking in
SecurityContext instead, similar to sandbox flags?  That would avoid having to
store it in two different places for local and remote frames (since
RemoteSecurityContext inherits from SecurityContext).

[estark, 2015/12/04 00:19:32]

Sure, that seems reasonable to me. Done.

 {
 }
 
@@ -130,6 +131,11 @@ bool RemoteFrame::shouldClose()
     return true;
 }
 
+bool RemoteFrame::shouldEnforceStrictMixedContentChecking() const
+{
+    return m_shouldEnforceStrictMixedContentChecking;
+}
+
 void RemoteFrame::forwardInputEvent(Event* event)
 {
     remoteFrameClient()->forwardInputEvent(event);
@@ -162,6 +168,11 @@ void RemoteFrame::createView()
         deprecatedLocalOwner()->setWidget(m_view);
 }
 
+void RemoteFrame::setShouldEnforceStrictMixedContentChecking(bool shouldEnforce)
+{
+    m_shouldEnforceStrictMixedContentChecking = shouldEnforce;
+}
+
 RemoteFrameClient* RemoteFrame::remoteFrameClient() const
 {
     return static_cast<RemoteFrameClient*>(client());