On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 2:45 PM, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl> wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 2:35 PM, Mike West <mkwst@google.com> wrote:
> > I'll poke at MIX this afternoon to bake in the passthrough loophole
> > discussed here. It's not entirely clear to me how to distinguish a
> `fetch()`
> > issued from the Document from the `fetch(event.request)` issued from the
> > Service Worker (as they'll both have a `context` of "fetch", right? and
> both
> > point to the same `window`?). Perhaps it makes sense to divide the
> "fetch"
> > context into "fetch" and "passthrough-fetch" in the same way we divided
> > "image" and "image-set"?
>
> Why do you need to distinguish them? It seems to me you only need to
> disallow mixed content when request's window is "no-window", which
> would apply to both documents and workers.
>
Wouldn't that allow `fetch([insecure url goes here], { window: null })` in
a document? I might be misreading the bits around
https://fetch.spec.whatwg.org/#dom-request, but it seems like "no-window"
can be set imperatively.
My goal would be to limit the carveout to the `self.onfetch = function
(event) { event.respondWith(fetch(event.request)); }` case. Is that too
limiting? Would you suggest allowing documents to `fetch()` things as well?
-mike
Received on Monday, 20 July 2015 12:52:24 UTC