Re: Intent to Implement and Ship: Large-Allocation Header

2017-01-19 Thread Michael Layzell
On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 3:58 AM, wrote: > Hey, > > a bunch of questions: > > how will you handle synchronous scripting between that process and other > frames from the same origin that aren't in that dedicated process? > If there are other toplevel windows within the loading window's unit of rel

Re: Intent to Implement and Ship: Large-Allocation Header

2017-01-19 Thread jochen
Hey, a bunch of questions: how will you handle synchronous scripting between that process and other frames from the same origin that aren't in that dedicated process? Will it be possible for an iframe to send this header? What will happen then? What will happen if a site requests a large alloc

Re: Intent to Implement and Ship: Large-Allocation Header

2017-01-18 Thread tritter
On Wednesday, January 18, 2017 at 2:21:40 PM UTC-6, Michael Layzell wrote: > Security & Privacy Concerns: none Do we normally allow 1GB allocations? (I think the answer is 'we try and maybe crash if we can't' right?) Allocating a continuous 1GB in a completely fresh process sounds like a great

Re: Intent to Implement and Ship: Large-Allocation Header

2017-01-18 Thread Eric Rescorla
On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 12:21 PM, Michael Layzell wrote: > Summary: > Games implemented on the web platform using WASM or asm.js use large > contiguous blocks of allocated memory as their backing store for game > memory. For complex games, these allocations can be quite large, sometimes > as larg

Re: Intent to Implement and Ship: Large-Allocation Header

2017-01-18 Thread Michael Layzell
This is true, but I'm not sure how this is worse than other mechanisms which can currently be used to deny other pages resources, such as allocating and leaking large amounts of memory or pegging the event loop. On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 4:38 PM, Martin Thomson wrote: > On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 10:

Re: Intent to Implement and Ship: Large-Allocation Header

2017-01-18 Thread Martin Thomson
On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 10:17 AM, Michael Layzell wrote: > @Martin There is a pref (dom.ipc.processCount.webLargeAllocation - default > 2) which controls the maximum number of processes which may be allocated to > Large-Allocation processes. Any requests past that number (firefox-globally) > will

Re: Intent to Implement and Ship: Large-Allocation Header

2017-01-18 Thread Michael Layzell
@Martin There is a pref (dom.ipc.processCount.webLargeAllocation - default 2) which controls the maximum number of processes which may be allocated to Large-Allocation processes. Any requests past that number (firefox-globally) will not cause new processes to be created. @Chris the Large-Allocatio

Re: Intent to Implement and Ship: Large-Allocation Header

2017-01-18 Thread Martin Thomson
On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 9:21 AM, Michael Layzell wrote: > Security & Privacy Concerns: none I doubt that this is true. You have provided a way for sites to gain a whole process to themselves, on request. Denial of service seems like something that would need to be considered if you intend to sh

Re: Intent to Implement and Ship: Large-Allocation Header

2017-01-18 Thread Chris Peterson
On 1/18/2017 12:21 PM, Michael Layzell wrote: Games implemented on the web platform using WASM or asm.js use large contiguous blocks of allocated memory as their backing store for game memory. For complex games, these allocations can be quite large, sometimes as large as 1GB. In 64-bit builds, we

Intent to Implement and Ship: Large-Allocation Header

2017-01-18 Thread Michael Layzell
Summary: Games implemented on the web platform using WASM or asm.js use large contiguous blocks of allocated memory as their backing store for game memory. For complex games, these allocations can be quite large, sometimes as large as 1GB. In 64-bit builds, we have no problem finding a large enough