Add permissions buts for Pepper plugins.

ppapi/shared_impl/ppapi_permissions.h

Index: ppapi/shared_impl/ppapi_permissions.h
diff --git a/ppapi/shared_impl/ppapi_permissions.h b/ppapi/shared_impl/ppapi_permissions.h
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..2872e4dadba2c01cdb4315f1f40eab48d410a18e
--- /dev/null
+++ b/ppapi/shared_impl/ppapi_permissions.h
@@ -0,0 +1,45 @@
+// Copyright (c) 2012 The Chromium Authors. All rights reserved.
+// Use of this source code is governed by a BSD-style license that can be
+// found in the LICENSE file.
+
+#ifndef PPAPI_SHARED_IMPL_PPAPI_PERMISSIONS_H_
+#define PPAPI_SHARED_IMPL_PPAPI_PERMISSIONS_H_
+
+#include "base/basictypes.h"
+#include "ppapi/shared_impl/ppapi_shared_export.h"
+
+namespace ppapi {
+
+enum Permission {
+  // Allows access to dev interfaces.
+  PERMISSION_DEV = 1 << 0,
+
+  // Allows access to Browser-internal interfaces.
+  PERMISSION_PRIVATE = 1 << 2,
+
+  // Allows ability to bypass user-gesture checks for showing things like
+  // file select dialogs.
+  PERMISSION_BYPASS_USER_GESTURE = 1 << 3
+};

[bbudge, 2012/07/07 22:26:22]

I get the feeling we'll quickly have more than 32 permissions, since there will
be API permissions. Perhaps a non-flag enum would be better. That makes it a bit
of a pain to initialize, but I'm not sure how much of a pain it would be in
practice, especially since permissions would be set based on parsing a manifest
file. Or do you have another idea in mind for API permissions?

[brettw, 2012/07/08 03:24:25]

I'm actually more optimistic about this being enough bits. We only have 24
permissions for Chrome extensions which probably does more than we will support.
And one bit will likely do much more than one interface assumign we follow a
similar model:
http://code.google.com/chrome/extensions/manifest.html#permissions
(for example, "direct socket access" would enable both TCP and UDP sockets, and
I would imagine also unlock all http origin and header restrictions (since you
could do http over sockets yourself if you wanted)).

In any case, I'm trying to get "something" so we can make progress and this
seemed like a good start. It should be easy to change this later should the need
arise since there are only a few places where these are initialized: the
checkers of permissions, of which there will be a lot, don't know about the
implementation).

+
+class PPAPI_SHARED_EXPORT PpapiPermissions {
+ public:
+  // Initializes the permissions struct with no permissions.
+  PpapiPermissions();
+
+  // Initializes with the given permissions bits set.
+  PpapiPermissions(uint32 perms);

[dmichael (off chromium), 2012/07/09 14:41:36]

explicit, please

+
+  ~PpapiPermissions();
+
+  bool HasPermission(Permission perm) const;
+
+ private:
+  uint32 permissions_;
+
+  // Note: Copy & assign supported.
+};
+
+}  // namespace ppapi
+
+#endif  // PPAPI_SHARED_IMPL_PPAPI_PERMISSIONS_H_