Bug 174966 – Add WKContentRuleList action to add a header to a request

• Status: NEW
• Component: New Bugs

[Alex Christensen]

Add WKContentRuleList action to add a header to a request

[Alex Christensen]

Created attachment 316695 [details]
Patch

[Alex Christensen]

Comment on attachment 316695 [details]
Patch

View in context: https://bugs.webkit.org/attachment.cgi?id=316695&action=review

Tests need improvement, but the content of the patch is ready for review.

> Tools/TestWebKitAPI/Tests/WebKit2Cocoa/AddHeader.mm:45
> +    // FIXME: Test subresources, resources that don't match, etc.

Also actually check for the existence of the test headers.

[Sam Weinig]

I think we should make it really clear at the API layer that the intent is to add a rule list that contains rules that can modify requests.

One way to do this would be to add a -[WKUserContentController addContentRuleList:options:] where you can pass in an option stating you want request / response modifying actions (and the existing -[WKUserContentController addContentRuleList:] would have a default options value that matches what we have today).  

Then, if it's easy to check that none of the actions are request modifying (which I think it should be, but could be wrong), we could throw, or maybe have an NSError out parameter. If it's not easy to check, we could pass the options down, and check when running the actions.

[Sam Weinig]

Maybe instead of options, 'capabilities'? Not sure.

[Darin Adler]

Comment on attachment 316695 [details]
Patch

View in context: https://bugs.webkit.org/attachment.cgi?id=316695&action=review

> Source/WebCore/contentextensions/ContentExtensionActions.h:48
> +    AddHeader,

Terminology here isn’t great. This adds a header field value, possibly creating a new header field or possible appending to an existing header field. The header is the name for the thing that contains all the header fields plus a few other things.

> Source/WebCore/contentextensions/ContentExtensionActions.h:56
> +    Vector<std::pair<String, String>> headersToAdd;

headerFieldValuesToAdd maybe

> Source/WebCore/contentextensions/ContentExtensionCompiler.cpp:59
> +    actions.grow(actions.size() + sizeof(uint32_t));
> +    *reinterpret_cast<uint32_t*>(&actions[actions.size() - sizeof(uint32_t)]) = stringLength;

Do we really have to do it like this with a reinterpret_cast? That’s not normally how we serialize multiple bytes elsewhere.

> Source/WebCore/contentextensions/ContentExtensionCompiler.cpp:63
> +    actions.uncheckedAppend(wideCharacters);

The use of uncheckedAppend here looks incorrect and possibly dangerous. I don’t see any code above reserving the capacity so this can be unchecked.

> Source/WebCore/contentextensions/ContentExtensionCompiler.cpp:68
> +        actions.grow(actions.size() + sizeof(UChar) * stringLength);
> +        for (unsigned i = 0; i < stringLength; ++i)
> +            *reinterpret_cast<UChar*>(&actions[startIndex + i * sizeof(UChar)]) = string[i];

Same question.

> Source/WebCore/contentextensions/ContentExtensionCompiler.cpp:170
> +                case ActionType::IgnorePreviousRules:
> +                case ActionType::BlockLoad:
> +                case ActionType::BlockCookies:
> +                case ActionType::MakeHTTPS:
> +                    actions.append(static_cast<SerializedActionByte>(actionType));
> +                    break;
> +                case ActionType::AddHeader:
> +                    serializeStringAction(actions, actionType, rule.action().stringArgument());
> +                    break;

I would just have a serializeString function. The action byte could be appended here for all cases unconditionally instead of inside the serializeStringAction. I think it would be cleaner separate of responsibilities in the code.

> Source/WebCore/contentextensions/ContentExtensionParser.cpp:248
> +        && header.startsWith("X-"); // Let's just pretend RFC6648 never happened.

Is this intentionally only checking for capital "X"? Or should it be using two startsWith calls or startsWithLettersIgnoringASCIICase?

> Source/WebCore/contentextensions/ContentExtensionParser.cpp:294
> +        return {Action(ActionType::AddHeader, headerString)};

WebKit style puts spaces inside the braces. But I see that this file is not following that style. I’d also suggest braces after Action rather than parentheses.

> Source/WebCore/contentextensions/ContentExtensionRule.cpp:69
> -        uint32_t headerLength = sizeof(ActionType) + sizeof(uint32_t) + sizeof(bool);
> -        uint32_t stringStartIndex = location + headerLength;
> +        uint32_t prefixLength = sizeof(ActionType) + sizeof(uint32_t) + sizeof(bool);
> +        uint32_t stringStartIndex = location + prefixLength;
>          RELEASE_ASSERT(actionsLength >= stringStartIndex);
> -        uint32_t selectorLength = *reinterpret_cast<const unsigned*>(&actions[location + sizeof(ActionType)]);
> +        uint32_t stringLength = *reinterpret_cast<const unsigned*>(&actions[location + sizeof(ActionType)]);
>          bool wideCharacters = actions[location + sizeof(ActionType) + sizeof(uint32_t)];
>          
>          if (wideCharacters) {
> -            RELEASE_ASSERT(actionsLength >= stringStartIndex + selectorLength * sizeof(UChar));
> -            return Action(ActionType::CSSDisplayNoneSelector, String(reinterpret_cast<const UChar*>(&actions[stringStartIndex]), selectorLength), location);
> +            RELEASE_ASSERT(actionsLength >= stringStartIndex + stringLength * sizeof(UChar));
> +            return Action(actionType, String(reinterpret_cast<const UChar*>(&actions[stringStartIndex]), stringLength), location);
>          }
> -        RELEASE_ASSERT(actionsLength >= stringStartIndex + selectorLength * sizeof(LChar));
> -        return Action(ActionType::CSSDisplayNoneSelector, String(reinterpret_cast<const LChar*>(&actions[stringStartIndex]), selectorLength), location);
> +        RELEASE_ASSERT(actionsLength >= stringStartIndex + stringLength * sizeof(LChar));
> +        return Action(actionType, String(reinterpret_cast<const LChar*>(&actions[stringStartIndex]), stringLength), location);

Seems to me this would be cleaner with a deserializeString function that parallels the function used to serialize a string.

Also seems like we should just consider using UTF-8 to serialize instead of having a separate UTF-16 case and Latin-1 case.

Generally annoying to have to have yet another set of code that knows how to serialize strings with all this type casting and math. It’s a task we do elsewhere and annoying we could not reuse any serialization framework we already have elsewhere in WebKit.

> Source/WebCore/contentextensions/ContentExtensionRule.h:151
> +        ASSERT(type != ActionType::CSSDisplayNoneSelector && type != ActionType::CSSDisplayNoneStyleSheet && type != ActionType::AddHeader);

Generally we try to have three assertions instead of one with && in it, so we can see which one failed.

> Source/WebCore/contentextensions/ContentExtensionsBackend.cpp:180
> +            size_t colonLocation = header.find(':');
> +            ASSERT(colonLocation != notFound);

Why can we assert this? Is there code somewhere that validates it? Seems like we need to check this rather than asserting it somewhere, since the data is coming from outside WebKit.

Is it OK for the header field name or header field value to be empty string? If not, then we should check and assert that too. What about whitespace? Is it allowed? Should it be stripped?

[Alex Christensen]

Thanks, Darin!  I took your feedback into account with an upcoming patch.
Sam, I'm not sure why you want a separate API for each ability of content rule lists, but if there is such a need, let's do it in a followup patch.

(In reply to Darin Adler from comment #5)
> Comment on attachment 316695 [details]
> Patch
> 
> View in context:
> https://bugs.webkit.org/attachment.cgi?id=316695&action=review
> 
> > Source/WebCore/contentextensions/ContentExtensionActions.h:48
> > +    AddHeader,
> 
> Terminology here isn’t great. This adds a header field value, possibly
> creating a new header field or possible appending to an existing header
> field. The header is the name for the thing that contains all the header
> fields plus a few other things.
I'm changing it to add-header-field, AddHeaderField, etc.
> > Source/WebCore/contentextensions/ContentExtensionCompiler.cpp:59
> > +    actions.grow(actions.size() + sizeof(uint32_t));
> > +    *reinterpret_cast<uint32_t*>(&actions[actions.size() - sizeof(uint32_t)]) = stringLength;

> Do we really have to do it like this with a reinterpret_cast? That’s not
> normally how we serialize multiple bytes elsewhere.
I could rewrite it to make the format not dependent on the endianness of the machine, but I'd like to not change this in this patch.

> > Source/WebCore/contentextensions/ContentExtensionCompiler.cpp:63
> > +    actions.uncheckedAppend(wideCharacters);
> 
> The use of uncheckedAppend here looks incorrect and possibly dangerous. I
> don’t see any code above reserving the capacity so this can be unchecked.
Woah, you're right.  This was mistakenly left in from an earlier version of the patch.

> Also seems like we should just consider using UTF-8 to serialize instead of
> having a separate UTF-16 case and Latin-1 case.
I also think that would be excessive change to the file format for this patch.  

> > Source/WebCore/contentextensions/ContentExtensionsBackend.cpp:180
> > +            size_t colonLocation = header.find(':');
> > +            ASSERT(colonLocation != notFound);
> 
> Why can we assert this? Is there code somewhere that validates it? Seems
> like we need to check this rather than asserting it somewhere, since the
> data is coming from outside WebKit.
The parser fails if there is no colon in the header field.

> Is it OK for the header field name or header field value to be empty string?
> If not, then we should check and assert that too. What about whitespace? Is
> it allowed? Should it be stripped?
Whitespace is allowed and untouched.  I will disallow \r and \n because they have special meaning in HTTP syntax.

[Alex Christensen]

Created attachment 316824 [details]
Patch

[Darin Adler]

(In reply to Alex Christensen from comment #6)
> > Is it OK for the header field name or header field value to be empty string?
> > If not, then we should check and assert that too. What about whitespace? Is
> > it allowed? Should it be stripped?
>
> Whitespace is allowed and untouched.  I will disallow \r and \n because they
> have special meaning in HTTP syntax.

That doesn’t seem quite right or sufficient. I was reading the HTTP RFC 7230, and these are not allowed to contain arbitrary data.

The field-name has to be a token and the only legal token characters are digits, letters, and these 15 characters: "!#$%&'*+-.^_`|~".

The field-value is preceded and followed by optional whitespace (spaces and tabs only). And there are many special rules about whitespace and what characters are allowed.

There is a lot relevant in the "Field Parsing" section of the RFC.

Maybe your plan of allowing any characters is OK, but I am not sure it is.

[Alex Christensen]

HTTPHeaderMap does not currently have the validity checks from RFC 7230, but maybe it should.  I'll add them to my header validity checker.

[Alex Christensen]

Created attachment 316898 [details]
Patch

[Alex Christensen]

Note: the fetch spec apparently intentionallyish doesn't check validity of HTTP headers
https://fetch.spec.whatwg.org/#concept-header-value

If they change their mind, we could use this parser.

[Darin Adler]

(In reply to Alex Christensen from comment #11)
> Note: the fetch spec apparently intentionallyish doesn't check validity of
> HTTP headers
> https://fetch.spec.whatwg.org/#concept-header-value

What I read there says something different from "doesn't check validity":

1) checks validity of HTTP header field names
2) strips leading and trailing spaces from potential values for HTTP header field values
3) forbids \0, \r, and \n in HTTP header field values

Should we also do these things?

[Build Bot]

Comment on attachment 316898 [details]
Patch

Attachment 316898 [details] did not pass mac-debug-ews (mac):
Output: http://webkit-queues.webkit.org/results/4239181

New failing tests:
http/tests/security/contentSecurityPolicy/audio-redirect-allowed2.html

[Build Bot]

Created attachment 316952 [details]
Archive of layout-test-results from ews115 for mac-elcapitan

The attached test failures were seen while running run-webkit-tests on the mac-debug-ews.
Bot: ews115  Port: mac-elcapitan  Platform: Mac OS X 10.11.6

[Alex Christensen]

(In reply to Darin Adler from comment #12)
> (In reply to Alex Christensen from comment #11)
> > Note: the fetch spec apparently intentionallyish doesn't check validity of
> > HTTP headers
> > https://fetch.spec.whatwg.org/#concept-header-value
> 
> What I read there says something different from "doesn't check validity":
> 
> 1) checks validity of HTTP header field names
We do this.
> 2) strips leading and trailing spaces from potential values for HTTP header
> field values
Based on https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7230#section-3.2.3 I think we should strip whitespace before and after everything and replace it with a single space before.
> 3) forbids \0, \r, and \n in HTTP header field values
We do this.
> 
> Should we also do these things?
We will have a stricter check than the fetch spec.

[Alex Christensen]

After speaking with Sam, I agree that we need to have SPI for restricting abilities to prevent content blockers that add a unique identifier to every request.
I also think we should consider preventing adding headers to insecure requests to prevent eavesdroppers from stealing possibly sensitive information added to the HTTP header.