Re: [blink-dev] Re: Intent to Ship: WebAssembly Content Security Policy

2021-10-07 Thread Daniel Bratell
LGTM3 /Daniel On 2021-10-07 09:25, Yoav Weiss wrote: LGTM2 On Thu, Oct 7, 2021 at 12:11 AM 'Francis McCabe' via blink-dev wrote: Confirming: there is no current plan to modify how extensions would work. I was alluding to semi-solid thoughts on how a possible wasm-src policy

Re: [blink-dev] Re: Intent to Ship: WebAssembly Content Security Policy

2021-10-07 Thread Yoav Weiss
LGTM2 On Thu, Oct 7, 2021 at 12:11 AM 'Francis McCabe' via blink-dev < blink-dev@chromium.org> wrote: > Confirming: there is no current plan to modify how extensions would work. > I was alluding to semi-solid thoughts on how a possible wasm-src policy > would work. But, in any case, wasm-unsafe-e

[blink-dev] Re: Intent to Ship: WebAssembly Content Security Policy

2021-10-06 Thread 'Francis McCabe' via blink-dev
Confirming: there is no current plan to modify how extensions would work. I was alluding to semi-solid thoughts on how a possible wasm-src policy would work. But, in any case, wasm-unsafe-eval would continue even without any new wasm-src. Also, currently, extensions (and only extensions and chro

[blink-dev] Re: Intent to Ship: WebAssembly Content Security Policy

2021-10-06 Thread 'Oliver Dunk' via blink-dev
Hey! Just to confirm, it seems like this change wouldn't impact extensions at all? My understanding is that the current implementation supports extensions by adding the chrome-extension:// URL scheme to an allow-list. With that in mind, I imagine the implementation here would be removing that a