Done https://github.com/WebKit/standards-positions/issues/51#issuecomment-1584956430
On Fri, Jun 9, 2023, 1:57 PM Rick Byers <rby...@chromium.org> wrote: > Thanks Ari, looks great! > > Can you also please post an update to the WebKit positions threads > <https://github.com/WebKit/standards-positions/issues/51#issuecomment-1470519891>? > I see you've landed fixes in CSP for 2 of the 3 issues Anne filed (great!), > but it would be good to know if WebKit folks still feel the state of > integration with CSP is such that they can't support this yet. Of course we > can choose to disagree, we should just be clear about where any > disagreement is. > > Thanks, > Rick > > On Fri, Jun 9, 2023 at 12:05 PM Ari Chivukula <aric...@chromium.org> > wrote: > >> Code and WPTs shipped here: >> https://chromium-review.googlesource.com/c/chromium/src/+/4555927 >> >> Spec shipped here: >> https://github.com/w3c/webappsec-permissions-policy/pull/516 >> >> ~ Ari Chivukula (Their/There/They're) >> >> >> On Wed, Apr 19, 2023 at 12:05 PM Rick Byers <rby...@chromium.org> wrote: >> >>> Hi Ari, >>> Given the discussion on your other intent >>> <https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/g/blink-dev/c/f28WWMD8HVE/m/xCrQN-8hAgAJ>, >>> can you try to get spec PRs and WPTs landed for this before shipping this >>> too? >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Rick >>> >>> On Wed, Apr 12, 2023 at 12:06 PM Ari Chivukula <aric...@chromium.org> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> I don't have a draft of the CSP or Permissions Policy spec changes >>>> yet. There won't be any breaking changes for either needed, the change is >>>> to a superset of supported matching options for Permissions Policy. >>>> >>>> ~ Ari Chivukula (Their/There/They're) >>>> >>>> >>>> On Wed, Apr 5, 2023 at 11:22 AM Alex Russell <slightly...@chromium.org> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> I'm not sure I understand this response. Do you have a draft change to >>>>> the CSP spec posted someplace? Will that update be a breaking change to >>>>> the >>>>> wildcard support being requested for launch in this thread? >>>>> >>>>> Best, >>>>> >>>>> Alex >>>>> >>>>> On Wednesday, April 5, 2023 at 6:29:27 AM UTC-7 Ari Chivukula wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> The PR needs to be updated to depend on CSP logic but I don't want to >>>>>> make that change until this expansion of wildcard support is approved and >>>>>> launched with some WPTs. It'll require making changes to the CSP spec >>>>>> itself and it all feels a bit too speculative until the launch in chrome >>>>>> is >>>>>> unblocked. >>>>>> >>>>>> On Wed, Apr 5, 2023, 4:57 AM Yoav Weiss <yoavwe...@chromium.org> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Tue, Mar 14, 2023 at 3:34 PM Ari Chivukula <aric...@chromium.org> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Contact emails >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> aric...@chromium.org, miketa...@chromium.org, >>>>>>>> iclell...@chromium.org >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Prior Work >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Wildcards in Permissions Policy Origins >>>>>>>> <https://chromestatus.com/feature/5170361717489664> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Specification >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> https://github.com/w3c/webappsec-permissions-policy/pull/482 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Any blockers for the PR to land? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Background >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> In M108 Chrome added support for wildcards in permissions policy >>>>>>>> structured like SCHEME://*.HOST:PORT (e.g., https://*.foo.com/) >>>>>>>> where a valid Origin could be constructed from SCHEME://HOST:PORT >>>>>>>> (e.g., >>>>>>>> https://foo.com/). This required that the HOST was at least eTLD+1 >>>>>>>> (a registrable domain). This meant that https://*.bar.foo.com/ >>>>>>>> works but https://*.com/ won’t (if you wanted to allow all domains >>>>>>>> to use the feature, you had to delegate to *). Wildcards in the scheme >>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>> port section were unsupported and https://*.foo.com/ did not >>>>>>>> delegate to https://foo.com/. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Before, a permissions policy might need to look like: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> permissions-policy: ch-ua-platform-version=(self "https://foo.com"; >>>>>>>> "https://cdn1.foo.com"; "https://cdn2.foo.com";) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> In M108 and later, it could look like: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> permissions-policy: ch-ua-platform-version=(self "https://foo.com"; >>>>>>>> "https://*.foo.com";) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Summary >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Subdomain wildcards in allowlists provided some valuable >>>>>>>> flexibility, but differed from existing wildcard parsers and required >>>>>>>> novel >>>>>>>> code and spec work. This intent will reduce that overhead by reusing >>>>>>>> parts >>>>>>>> of the existing Content Security Policy spec >>>>>>>> <https://www.w3.org/TR/CSP/#framework-directive-source-list> and >>>>>>>> permitting ‘scheme + wildcard domain’ and ‘wildcard port’ in the >>>>>>>> allowlist. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Specifically, this intent would adopt the definition of host-source >>>>>>>> <https://www.w3.org/TR/CSP/#grammardef-host-source> and >>>>>>>> scheme-source <https://www.w3.org/TR/CSP/#grammardef-scheme-source> >>>>>>>> instead of origin >>>>>>>> <https://www.w3.org/TR/permissions-policy/#allowlists> in the >>>>>>>> Allowlist definition while requiring that the path-part >>>>>>>> <https://www.w3.org/TR/CSP/#grammardef-path-part> is empty (as >>>>>>>> Permissions Policies apply to matching origins). This would change >>>>>>>> three >>>>>>>> things from the prior wildcard implementation (all of which expand the >>>>>>>> range of allowed wildcards and none of which add new restrictions): >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> (1) Removing the eTLD+1 requirement for subdomain wildcards >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Previously, you could not have a subdomain wildcard like >>>>>>>> “https://*.com” >>>>>>>> but could have one like “https://*.example.com”. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Now, you can have subdomain wildcards both like “https://*.com” >>>>>>>> and “https://*.example.com”. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> (2) Allowing scheme restrictions on wildcard domains. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Previously, you could allow “*” but not restrict to a specific >>>>>>>> scheme like “https://*” or “https:”. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Now, you can still allow “*” but have the option of delegating to >>>>>>>> just a specific scheme like “https://*” or “https:” (the behavior >>>>>>>> of these is identical). >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> (3) Allowing port wildcards. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Previously you could delegate to the default https port like “ >>>>>>>> https://example.com” or “https://example.com:443” (the behavior of >>>>>>>> these is identical), but there was no way to explicitly delegate to all >>>>>>>> ports like “https://example.com:*”. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Now, you can still delegate to “https://example.com” or >>>>>>>> “https://example.com:443” but delegation is also permitted to a >>>>>>>> wildcard port like “https://example.com:*”. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Blink component >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Blink>PermissionsAPI >>>>>>>> <https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/list?q=component:Blink%3EPermissionsAPI> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Motivation >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The Permissions Policy specification >>>>>>>> <https://w3c.github.io/webappsec-permissions-policy/> “defines a >>>>>>>> mechanism that allows developers to selectively enable and disable use >>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>> various browser features and APIs.” One capability of this mechanism >>>>>>>> allows >>>>>>>> features to be enabled only on explicitly enumerated origins (e.g., >>>>>>>> https://foo.com/). This mechanism is not flexible enough for the >>>>>>>> design of some CDNs, which deliver content via an origin that might be >>>>>>>> hosted on one of several hundred possible subdomains. Rather than >>>>>>>> designing >>>>>>>> a novel wildcard system we should reuse an existing one >>>>>>>> <https://www.w3.org/TR/CSP/#framework-directive-source-list> to >>>>>>>> reduce developer overhead and promote code/spec component reuse. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> There has not been a prior discussion on specifically which new >>>>>>>> types of wildcards should be added when we switched to using the CSP >>>>>>>> parser, so that discussion should be resolved in the approval of this >>>>>>>> intent and in the interoperability/TAG issues below. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> TAG review >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> https://github.com/w3ctag/design-reviews/issues/765 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Compatibility >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Depending on their user base, sites may want to entertain a >>>>>>>> transition period for older Chromium clients where they enumerate all >>>>>>>> desired origins for some versions and use wildcards for others. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Interoperability >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> We would be the first to implement if approved. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Gecko: https://github.com/mozilla/standards-positions/issues/760 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> WebKit: https://github.com/WebKit/standards-positions/issues/51 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Not necessarily a blocker to shipping IMO, but Anne raised a few >>>>>>> reasonably-looking issues on CSP related to this feature's integration >>>>>>> with >>>>>>> it. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Debuggability >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Future work might flag syntax errors in the Issues tab >>>>>>>> <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lDEvj8tMeuvUs1HTTqL-44YiI-7ljeQkusM_WhUfIeE/edit> >>>>>>>> . >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Is this feature fully tested by web-platform-tests? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> No, but it will be. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Tracking bug >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> https://crbug.com/1418009 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Link to entry on the Chrome Platform Status >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> https://chromestatus.com/feature/5170361717489664 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>>>>>>> Groups "blink-dev" group. >>>>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, >>>>>>>> send an email to blink-dev+unsubscr...@chromium.org. >>>>>>>> To view this discussion on the web visit >>>>>>>> https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/CAGpy5DJRu2--NqZdPKjeF9HRc%3DcQaNFxCpYb%3DUvfsmperXPTFg%40mail.gmail.com >>>>>>>> <https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/CAGpy5DJRu2--NqZdPKjeF9HRc%3DcQaNFxCpYb%3DUvfsmperXPTFg%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> >>>>>>>> . >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>>> Groups "blink-dev" group. >>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send >>>> an email to blink-dev+unsubscr...@chromium.org. >>>> To view this discussion on the web visit >>>> https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/CAGpy5DJ%2Bhr8chAOPiTvaSwYzJF%2B2A1ZiVG7CUR3scv1DgEreag%40mail.gmail.com >>>> <https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/CAGpy5DJ%2Bhr8chAOPiTvaSwYzJF%2B2A1ZiVG7CUR3scv1DgEreag%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> >>>> . >>>> >>> -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "blink-dev" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to blink-dev+unsubscr...@chromium.org. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/CAGpy5DKXBdAbGTSs7OggadTdkQ_yr7Jpt_LuEra1a-nekzz2Aw%40mail.gmail.com.
