Open
Bug 96680
Opened 23 years ago
Updated 2 years ago
deloading of HTTP handler from nsScriptSecurityManager::InitPrincipals
Categories
(Core :: Security: CAPS, defect)
Core
Security: CAPS
Tracking
()
NEW
Future
People
(Reporter: ftang, Assigned: dveditz)
References
Details
(Keywords: perf)
I found this issue when I try to address 96678 (and . We try to speed up the
start up loading time by remove unnecessary init code .
What I found is the HTTP handler got create in
nsScriptSecurityManager::InitPrincipals even we simply run a
mozilla -chrome file:/c:/temp/minimal.xul
( see bug 75041 for details)
It looks like in the initialization time nsScriptSecurityManager::InitPrincipals
read in the perference and iterate through the pref, for each iteration, it will
call nsCodebasePrincipal::InitFromPersistent and therefore call NS_NewURI which
will eventually create a protocol handler.
Is that possible that we can delay such call
(nsCodebasePrincipal::InitFromPersistent) untill we hit a related url ?
in the test case provide by 75041, we only load file: url and somehow in this
place we create a http handler for it.
Reporter | ||
Updated•23 years ago
|
Comment 1•23 years ago
|
||
This call to NS_NewURI has caused problems before - it once caused an infinite
recursion on startup, which we fixed through other menas. The reason I use
NewURI here is to take advantage of the URL parser - we read a URL string out of
prefs and we'd like to store it as an NSIURI, not a string. We could just save
it as a string initially and parse it lazily, but this just adds another level
of complexity to the caps code, which I'm trying desparately to keep simple to
make it easier to keep secure.
I'm willing to revisit the idea of doing this lazily, though. Maybe someone can
think of an alternative. What's your timeframe on this? Is it targeted for 0.9.4?
Comment 2•23 years ago
|
||
performance, footprint, feature work, and re-architecture bugs will be addressed
in 0.9.8
Target Milestone: --- → mozilla0.9.8
Comment 4•23 years ago
|
||
Isn't this related to the workaround for bug 89488? Should it go to the OJI folks?
Comment 5•23 years ago
|
||
This should have been fixed by the removal of the workaround for bug 89488.
Updated•22 years ago
|
QA Contact: ckritzer → bsharma
Assignee | ||
Updated•18 years ago
|
Assignee: security-bugs → dveditz
QA Contact: bsharma → caps
Comment 6•15 years ago
|
||
Is this fixed?
Updated•2 years ago
|
Severity: normal → S3
You need to log in
before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description
•