On 2011-06-01 04.58, Damien Miller wrote:
>>> The recent trend of forking another process for a tab instead of a
>>> monolithic single process for the whole browser is a way of extending
>>> the time required to clean up this mess? Or there is no relation
>>> between them?
>> I cannot look into the heads of the chrome devs. There's no technical
>> reason why the tabs can't run in the same process.
> No technical reason if you exclude isolating mutually-distrusting data
> origins from each other. It is similar to the privilege separation we
> do in most OpenBSD network-facing daemons - it is pretty much the only
> way to do sandboxing on Unix.
Yes, I was about to make that comment as well. Not only is there (perhaps)
some security to be won that way, but also a more crash-resilient product.
I often find myself having a couple of dozen browser windows, each with
a dozen or more tabs, and whenever one of those 100+ sites does something
that confuses the browser enough for it to crash, it brings down the whole
house of cards with it.
That is in fact the one advantage Chrome has that appeals to me - when it
crashes it (most of the time) only brings down that one window/tab. (On
the other hand, that it crashes in the first place is of course not a sign
of a solid, secure, well made piece of software... oh well, that's modern
software design for you.)
Regards,
/Benny
--
internetlabbet.se / work: +46 8 551 124 80 / "Words must
Benny LC6fgren / mobile: +46 70 718 11 90 / be weighed,
/ fax: +46 8 551 124 89 / not counted."
/ email: benny -at- internetlabbet.se
