Fix process transfers for blob urls of sites requiring dedicated processes.

content/browser/frame_host/render_frame_host_manager.cc

 // Copyright 2013 The Chromium Authors. All rights reserved.
 // Use of this source code is governed by a BSD-style license that can be
 // found in the LICENSE file.
 
 #include "content/browser/frame_host/render_frame_host_manager.h"
 
 #include <stddef.h>
 
 #include <algorithm>
 #include <utility>
@@ skipping 1428 matching lines @@
 
   // Don't swap processes for extensions embedded in DevTools. See
   // https://crbug.com/564216.
   if (rfh->GetSiteInstance()->GetSiteURL().SchemeIs(kChromeDevToolsScheme)) {
     // TODO(nick): https://crbug.com/570483 Check to see if |dest_url| is a
     // devtools extension, and swap processes if not.
     return false;
   }
 
   BrowserContext* context = rfh->GetSiteInstance()->GetBrowserContext();
-  GURL effective_url = SiteInstanceImpl::GetEffectiveURL(context, dest_url);
+  GURL site_url = SiteInstanceImpl::GetSiteForURL(context, dest_url);
 
   // TODO(nasko, nick): These following --site-per-process checks are
   // overly simplistic. Update them to match all the cases
   // considered by DetermineSiteInstanceForURL.
   if (IsCurrentlySameSite(rfh, dest_url)) {
     // The same site, no transition needed for security purposes, and we must
     // keep the same SiteInstance for correctness of synchronous scripting.
     return false;
   }
 
   // The sites differ. If either one requires a dedicated process,
   // then a transfer is needed.
   if (rfh->GetSiteInstance()->RequiresDedicatedProcess() ||
-      SiteInstanceImpl::DoesSiteRequireDedicatedProcess(context,
-                                                        effective_url)) {
+      SiteInstanceImpl::DoesSiteRequireDedicatedProcess(context, site_url)) {

[Charlie Reis, 2016/09/09 18:54:39]

Can you explain why was passing the effective URL wrong?

I noticed that DoesSiteRequireDedicatedProcess is documented to expect an
effective_url (in site_instance_impl.h).  Same for
ContentBrowserClient::DoesSiteRequireDedicatedProcess.  Should we change that
documentation?  The parameter names are also inconsistent: it's effective_url
until we get to chrome_content_browser_client.cc, when it becomes
effective_site_url.

There are two other callsites: SII::RequiresDedicatedProcess (which passes a
site URL) and RFHM::DetermineSiteInstanceForURL (which apparently passes a
normal URL, neither effective nor site, in TDI mode).  Is the latter one a
problem?

     return true;
   }
 
   if (SiteIsolationPolicy::IsTopDocumentIsolationEnabled() &&
       (!frame_tree_node_->IsMainFrame() ||
        rfh->GetSiteInstance()->is_default_subframe_site_instance())) {
     // Always attempt a transfer in these cases.
     return true;
   }
 
@@ skipping 1204 matching lines @@
                                              resolved_url)) {
     DCHECK(!dest_instance ||
            dest_instance == render_frame_host_->GetSiteInstance());
     return false;
   }
 
   return true;
 }
 
 }  // namespace content