3 ms·
I'm not being glib, my current work involves security and privacy, and so I'm more sensitive / concerned about those issues than rendering performance. Current
by cromwellian 8y ago
I'm not being glib, my current work involves security and privacy, and so I'm more sensitive / concerned about those issues than rendering performance. Current JITs like V8 even give me the willies in terms of attack surface area, such that I'm willing to stomach something like a WASM interpreter for my use cases.
I recognize that WebRender is a huge technique achievement and I absolutely love it when people achieve silky smooth 60fps renders, and if I was working on games or graphics or UX, I'd probably rank that over top of Site Isolation.
The original post mentioned process isolation and flash, so my comment was more a long the lines of 'it's still behind chrome (in isolation)'
- pcwalton 8y agoEven if all you care about is security, I don't think Site Isolation makes a real-world difference right now, as it's simply a defense-in-depth Spectre mitigation in case the first-line Spectre mitigations, which are deployed in both Chrome and Firefox, fail. At present, using Site Isolation to protect against compromised renderers is a TODO for both Chrome and Firefox. It's true that Chrome is closer to getting there, though.
- readittwice 8y agoPlease correct me if am wrong: But I think both Chrome and Safari have disabled/removed their Spectre-mitigations in the JS engine.
- ripsawridge 8y agoFor Chrome the TurboFan (jit optimizing compiler) Spectre mitigations are turned off when site isolation is on.