Don't pass ProcessHandle through ChildProcessHostDelegate.

Don't pass ProcessHandle through ChildProcessHostDelegate.

ChildProcessHostDelegate doesn't make clear what ownership rules apply to
the process handle and as a result one of the implementations assume that
the caller has to delete the handle (ServiceUtilityProcessHost) while the
other one assumes that it does not (BrowserChildProcessHostImpl).

On the other hand, one caller closes the handle (ChildProcessHostImpl)
and the other does not (PpapiPluginProcessHost).

This CL enforces the API of not transfering ownership when getting the
process handle (as both implementations keep using the handle after they
receive the call).

BUG=417532
Committed: https://crrev.com/5779b38e9f3fae82dbbed7219d96cdd19eef1813
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#304664}

[rvargas (doing something else), 2014-11-17 19:52:12]

Patchset #1 (id:1) has been deleted

[rvargas (doing something else), 2014-11-17 23:44:33]

rvargas@chromium.org changed reviewers:
+ cpu@chromium.org, jam@chromium.org

[rvargas (doing something else), 2014-11-17 23:45:01]

PTAL:
cpu -> base
jam -> content

[cpu_(ooo_6.6-7.5), 2014-11-18 01:40:43]

base lgtm

https://codereview.chromium.org/725353003/diff/20001/base/process/process_win.cc
File base/process/process_win.cc (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/725353003/diff/20001/base/process/process_win...
base/process/process_win.cc:48: return Process();
no dcheck before returning at 48?

[rvargas (doing something else), 2014-11-18 01:52:34]

Thanks

https://codereview.chromium.org/725353003/diff/20001/base/process/process_win.cc
File base/process/process_win.cc (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/725353003/diff/20001/base/process/process_win...
base/process/process_win.cc:48: return Process();
On 2014/11/18 01:40:42, cpu wrote:
> no dcheck before returning at 48?

I don't think so. I'm mostly going by what we do at line 78, but I think there
are valid reasons (access related?) to fail here. dunno

[jam, 2014-11-18 19:12:26]

lgtm

https://codereview.chromium.org/725353003/diff/20001/content/public/browser/b...
File content/public/browser/browser_ppapi_host.h (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/725353003/diff/20001/content/public/browser/b...
content/public/browser/browser_ppapi_host.h:64: // Returns a refernce to the
plugin process.
nit: spelling

[rvargas (doing something else), 2014-11-18 19:27:48]

rvargas@chromium.org changed reviewers:
+ gene@chromium.org

[rvargas (doing something else), 2014-11-18 19:27:49]

Thanks.

+gene for chrome/service

https://codereview.chromium.org/725353003/diff/20001/content/public/browser/b...
File content/public/browser/browser_ppapi_host.h (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/725353003/diff/20001/content/public/browser/b...
content/public/browser/browser_ppapi_host.h:64: // Returns a refernce to the
plugin process.
On 2014/11/18 19:12:26, jam wrote:
> nit: spelling

I'll fix it before landing.

[gene, 2014-11-18 19:34:37]

lgtm for chrome/service

[rvargas (doing something else), 2014-11-18 19:44:18]

The CQ bit was checked by rvargas@chromium.org

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-11-18 19:44:32]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/patch-status/725353003/40001

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-11-18 20:44:20]

Committed patchset #2 (id:40001)

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-11-18 20:45:09]

Patchset 2 (id:??) landed as
https://crrev.com/5779b38e9f3fae82dbbed7219d96cdd19eef1813
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#304664}