Relax shared module whitelist restriction

Relax shared module whitelist restriction

This is to allow unpacked extensions to load without checking
a shared module's whitelist.  Webstore installs and side-loading
via CRX are still restricted.

BUG=414950
Committed: https://crrev.com/1511c019fae487232a2b8402c27a2834be2491e3
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#296134}

[elijahtaylor1, 2014-09-17 17:05:24]

elijahtaylor@chromium.org changed reviewers:
+ rockot@chromium.org, sky@chromium.org

[elijahtaylor1, 2014-09-17 17:05:48]

PTAL

rockot: chrome/browser

sky: chrome/common

[Ken Rockot(use gerrit already), 2014-09-17 17:32:54]

lgtm

https://codereview.chromium.org/573113002/diff/20001/chrome/common/pepper_per...
File chrome/common/pepper_permission_util_unittest.cc (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/573113002/diff/20001/chrome/common/pepper_per...
chrome/common/pepper_permission_util_unittest.cc:126: // to use shared_module,
because the pepper permission utilitiy does not care
nit: "utility"

[elijahtaylor1, 2014-09-17 17:41:04]

https://codereview.chromium.org/573113002/diff/20001/chrome/common/pepper_per...
File chrome/common/pepper_permission_util_unittest.cc (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/573113002/diff/20001/chrome/common/pepper_per...
chrome/common/pepper_permission_util_unittest.cc:126: // to use shared_module,
because the pepper permission utilitiy does not care
On 2014/09/17 17:32:54, Ken Rockot wrote:
> nit: "utility"

Done.

[sky, 2014-09-17 19:39:33]

I'm not a good reviewer as I haven't a clue about pepper. Is there a better
owner you can find? Maybe there should be per owners for pepper files?

[elijahtaylor1, 2014-09-17 19:47:41]

elijahtaylor@chromium.org changed reviewers:
+ jam@chromium.org

[elijahtaylor1, 2014-09-17 19:49:59]

jam: can you review chrome/common/pepper_permission_util* for me as an OWNER?

sky: yeah, I suspect a per-file owners for these files would be better than top
level chrome reviewers.  What's the protocol here?  Who is the OWNERS of OWNERS?
 Maybe I'll ping Pepper folks

[sky, 2014-09-17 19:51:12]

I'll happily approve a per owners addition that lists someone that has
substantially contributed to the appropriate files.

On Wed, Sep 17, 2014 at 12:49 PM,  <elijahtaylor@chromium.org> wrote:
> jam: can you review chrome/common/pepper_permission_util* for me as an
> OWNER?
>
> sky: yeah, I suspect a per-file owners for these files would be better than
> top
> level chrome reviewers.  What's the protocol here?  Who is the OWNERS of
> OWNERS?
>  Maybe I'll ping Pepper folks
>
> https://codereview.chromium.org/573113002/

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to chromium-reviews+unsubscribe@chromium.org.

[elijahtaylor1, 2014-09-18 19:25:36]

jam: ping

[elijahtaylor1, 2014-09-19 17:55:23]

elijahtaylor@chromium.org changed reviewers:
+ yzshen@chromium.org
- jam@chromium.org, sky@chromium.org

[elijahtaylor1, 2014-09-19 17:56:11]

yzshen: PTAL, now that you are an owner of pepper_ files in chrome/common/

[yzshen1, 2014-09-19 18:11:05]

On 2014/09/19 17:56:11, elijahtaylor1 wrote:
> yzshen: PTAL, now that you are an owner of pepper_ files in chrome/common/

LGTM but do you need a reviewer from the security team?

[elijahtaylor1, 2014-09-19 19:17:54]

elijahtaylor@chromium.org changed reviewers:
+ jln@chromium.org

[elijahtaylor1, 2014-09-19 19:19:40]

Julien, would you mind taking a look at this?  The only implication security
wise is this allows any apps loaded as unpacked extensions to use bare metal
mode if they import particular shared modules.

[jln (very slow on Chromium), 2014-09-22 22:42:42]

On 2014/09/19 19:19:40, elijahtaylor1 wrote:
> Julien, would you mind taking a look at this?  The only implication security
> wise is this allows any apps loaded as unpacked extensions to use bare metal
> mode if they import particular shared modules.

After talking to the extension guys, it looks like unpacked extensions can spoof
other extensions' ids already.
So it would already be possible to spoof a whitelisted extension id, so this is
a security no-op.

lgtm

[elijahtaylor1, 2014-09-23 00:14:44]

The CQ bit was checked by elijahtaylor@chromium.org

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-09-23 00:15:14]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/patch-status/573113002/60001

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-09-23 02:47:29]

Committed patchset #4 (id:60001) as 03840a552327313b57b5e5d1b6dace1008b727bc

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-09-23 02:48:07]

Patchset 4 (id:??) landed as
https://crrev.com/1511c019fae487232a2b8402c27a2834be2491e3
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#296134}