On Thu, Jul 25, 2013 at 5:23 PM, Robert O'Callahan <robert@ocallahan.org>wrote: > On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 6:29 AM, Ehsan Akhgari <ehsan.akhgari@gmail.com>wrote: > >> The severity issue here I think is rather clear and non-controversial. >> For content which is affected by this, you'll get corrupted audio playback >> in case the AudioBuffer is modified on the main thread, or you'll get >> corrupted audio playback and probably the ability to read memory content >> that does not belong to you in the case where the ArrayBuffers are neutered >> by content. Robert already wrote a very simple test case to demonstrate >> the first issue. It would be very interesting to see how easily one could >> write a test case for the second issue, but I think it will work by >> basically allocating a large AudioBuffer, neuter the ArrayBuffers by >> sending them to a worker, connect the AudioBufferSourceNode to a >> ScriptProcessorNode and examine the contents of inputBuffer. >> > > I already posted a testcase for the second issue. Chris has informally > proposed to fix it by introducing the concept of "non-neuterable > ArrayBuffers". I don't think that solution will get past the editors of the > Typed Array spec (or the TAG, it looks like), but at least we agree the > issue must be fixed one way or another. > Can you point me toward that? Sorry, this thread has grown beyond manageability (and yes, I've contributed to that) - but this is a critical point.
Received on Friday, 26 July 2013 16:28:49 UTC