-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 2.5k
Chrome 141/Firefox 140 storage access activation per origin #28682
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
base: main
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Chrome 141/Firefox 140 storage access activation per origin #28682
Conversation
|
Tip: Review these changes grouped by change (recommended for most PRs), or grouped by feature (for large PRs). |
Co-authored-by: Chris Fredrickson <[email protected]>
cfredric
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Chrome details LGTM!
|
Hi @caugner! Do you have time to look at this one? |
caugner
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Should we actually move this into a behavioral subfeature? (This sounds like a spec change!?)
api/Document.json
Outdated
| "firefox": { | ||
| "version_added": "65" | ||
| "version_added": "65", | ||
| "notes": "From version 140 onwards, activating the `storage-access` permission via `requestStorageAccess()` results in third-party cookies being sent only with requests to the calling embed's exact origin (see [bug 1965817](https://bugzil.la/1965817)). Before version 140, it resulted in third-party cookies being sent with requests to the calling embed's site." |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I asked internally for confirmation that this is the right bug.
Yup - the corresponding spec change was privacycg/storage-access#213. |
Thanks! Based on that, the subfeature could be called |
To clarify, how would you represent this in the current setup? This isn't a separate feature; it's represented as notes hanging off the |
I would add a subfeature |
OK, I've done so. |
api/Document.json
Outdated
| "notes": "Client-side storage access granted per-page ([see explanation](https://developer.mozilla.org/docs/Web/API/Storage_Access_API#how_it_works))" | ||
| "notes": [ | ||
| "Client-side storage access is granted per-page ([see explanation](https://developer.mozilla.org/docs/Web/API/Storage_Access_API#how_it_works)).", | ||
| "`storage-access` activation results in third-party cookies being sent with requests to the calling embed's site." |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Either this note describes the expected behavior before the spec change (then let's remove this note), or it describes a particular Chrome behavior before the spec change (then let's remove the note to the subfeature).
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Rats, I meant to remove that note, but forgot. Removed now.
I also updated the URL on the remaining note line to point directly at the note that explains "granted per-page", as the existing URL wasn't very effective.
Co-authored-by: Claas Augner <[email protected]>
Summary
While using the Storage Access API, when embedded content activates a previously-granted
storage-accesspermission via therequestStorageAccess()method, 3rd party cookies are now only sent with requests to the calling embed's exact origin.Previously, 3rd party cookies were sent with requests to the calling embed's site.
This behavioral change has occurred in:
This PR adds notes in relevant places to document this change.
cc @cfredric / @hamishwillee — I'd appreciate your input on this one, folks.
Test results and supporting details
Related issues