MessagePort close explainer

Metadata

Author: Fergal Daly Status: Draft

What is this?

This is a proposal to add a close event which fires when a MessagePort's entangled port is closed or becomes unreferenced (e.g. it was owned by a process that has crashed).

Problem to be addressed

There is no timely and reliable signal for when a MessagePort has become unusable. This makes it difficult to free resources associated with ports. The best that can be achieved is timeliness in many cases by reacting to lifecycle state changes and reliability in the remaining cases by depending on GC via WeakRefs.

By using all of these, a comprehensive solution is actually possible but it is unergonomic and it does not seem to be well known.

Background

This issue has a long discussion of the problem and potential solutions.

MessagePorts

The MessageChannel API provides access to a pair of "entangled" ports. MessagePorts. A MessagePort can send/receive messages with its entangled port. They can be passed to other frames, including cross-origin frames. Either of both ports in an entangled pair can end up owned by documents that have no knowledge of each-other.

Resource management is difficult

It may be that one holder of a MessagePort is holding resources that are associated with it. These resources should be freed when the port is no longer useful. There is no explicit signal available as to when that has happened.

Existing strategies for detecting when the port has closed

Free after timeout

The spec includes this advice

Broadcasting to many ports is in principle relatively simple: keep an array of MessagePort objects to send messages to, and iterate through the array to send a message. However, this has one rather unfortunate effect: it prevents the ports from being garbage collected, even if the other side has gone away. To avoid this problem, implement a simple protocol whereby the other side acknowledges it still exists. If it doesn't do so after a certain amount of time, assume it's gone, close the `MessagePort`` object, and let it be garbage collected.

Waiting for some time and assuming that the other side is gone may be OK for some uses but there are other uses where a port may have a long lifetime or a lifetime/usage that is dependent on user actions. Freeing resources prematurely would be a problem there. So a timeout based approach does not work for the general case.

WeakRefs

If the MessagePort is held only in a WeakRef, when the other side goes away, drops the reference, calls close() or otherwise causes the connection between the ports to end, the local MessagePort object becomes eligible for garbage collection (GC). So, periodically checking the WeakRef and freeing resources only if it deref()s to null will avoid resource issues without ever prematurely freeing resources.

Lifecycle events and WeakRefs

Relying entirely on GC may result in an arbitrarily long delay. Adding some communication of lifecycle state can help. Having the other side communicate its lifecycle state, e.g. by sending a message when the document is being destroyed or navigated away from, would allow earlier cleanup. This could be done in a pagehide event handler when the event's persisted field is false. The cases where the other side

• crashes
• enters BFCache and is destroyed without being restored
• fails to communicate are covered by GC.

Concerns

In the issue there are 2 main concerns expressed about any solutions.

Exposing that cross-origin navigation has occurred

By passing a MessagePort to a cross-origin document and listening to the close event, it is possible to find out when that document has been destroyed. This can be done with without the cooperation of the document in question.

This information is already available through the use of WeakRefs. The concern here can only be about the timing of this information. There would not be any new capability granted by allowing delivering this event eventually.

Right now a page that wanted this information as close as possible to the destruction event could poll the WeakRef frequently while allocating engaging in activity that triggers GC. A demo of this is here (source).

It's unclear that there would be any now capability granted by delivering this event promptly if the observer is willing to behave in a way that triggers GC.

Question: Is there a specific problem or attack that is enabled by delivering the event in a timely manner?

Exposing garbage collection

Since this event would need to fire in reaction to a port becoming GCed, the timing of the event reveals the occurrence of GC.

Question: Why is this a concern? Polling WeakRefs already seems to give this ability. This would potentially give it cross-origin but that would only be the case if the port was closed by becoming unreferenced. The listener cannot know whether the port was explicitly closed, last reference was dropped or if the owning document has been destroyed. Is it simply that exposing GC is something to be avoided when possible?

Proposal

Add a close event that fires when an entangled MessagePort is closed. Given a pair of entangled ports, portA and portB, if portA is closed, the event is fired on portB. This close event is used as follows:

portB.onclose = () => {
  console.log("portA has been closed.");
  // Free up resources associated with the port.
}

This can be done in such a way that it exposes no information that isn't already exposed but provides much better ergonomics and gives us an opportunity to explicitly choose better timing.

There are several different scenarios to cover. In each case, the fact that the port has been closed will inevitably become known to the holder of the entangled port if they implement the strategies above. So all that is really to be decided is the timing of the event firing.

Implementation-wise it seems simplest to fire the close event on a port when that port stops being "entangled" with the other port (as specified here)

The implications are discussed for each case.

close() is called

Firing the close event as soon as possible after the entangled port's close() method is called seems appropriate. This is an explicit action taken by holder of the object and it reveals nothing about GC.

Owning Document Crashes

In this case, from an implementation point of view, it is possible to fire the event on entangled port immediately (subject to inter-process delays).

Owning Document is Destroyed

If the document is destroyed due to something other than a crash, e.g. navigation or iframe deletion, this may result in the MessagePort object becoming unreferenced and then GCed some time in the future (see below) or if this was the only document in the JS execution context it may result in prompt GC. See the next section.

Port is Garbage Collected

At the point that the port is GCed, we can fire the close event on the entangled port.

Discussion

The choices above do not always avoid the concerns listed above however it does not seem to be possible to avoid them fully. In particular, it seems impossible to avoid exposing the timing of GC or navigation in some cases. Given that it is already effectively exposed, this accepts that and provides an ergonomic solution.

Alternatives considered

Alternative timings

If we only send the event on an explicit close() or when the document owning the object is destroyed then we avoid exposing GC timing. If we do this without also changing the entanglement timing then WeakRef can still be used to observe GC timing. Changing when entanglement ends is doable but currently it ends as soon as possible in all cases. This would add some complication. It would also indefinitely extend to the entangled lifetime of some MessagePorts (those that currently end via GC).

Require action by the receive of the MessagePort

To avoid exposing the information about navigations occurring in cross-origin frames, the close event would not be sent unless the owning document took some explicit action after receiving the MessagePort via postMessage. Suggested here

Given that WeakRefs inevitably expose the disentanglement of MessagePorts already, it does not seem useful to try to hide that.

TAG Security & Privacy Questionnaire Answers

• Author: murakinonoka@google.com
• Questionnaire Source: https://www.w3.org/TR/security-privacy-questionnaire/#questions

Questions

• What information might this feature expose to Web sites or other parties, and for what purposes is that exposure necessary?
  • This feature exposes that cross-navigation’s destruction or garbage collection has occurred. By passing a MessagePort to a document and listening to a close event, it is possible to find out when the document has been destroyed or the port has been garbage collected. However, this information is already exposed by polling WeakRef frequently and the close event enables this information to be exposed more timely and reliably. In addition to that, the listener cannot know if the close event is caused by document destruction/explicit close/just general GC due to being unreferenced.
• Do features in your specification expose the minimum amount of information necessary to enable their intended uses?
  • Yes. The close event carries no other information except that the port is now closed.
• How do the features in your specification deal with personal information, personally-identifiable information (PII), or information derived from them?
  • This proposal does not deal with PII.
• How do the features in your specification deal with sensitive information?
  • This proposal does not deal with sensitive information.
• Do the features in your specification introduce new state for an origin that persists across browsing sessions?
  • No.
• Do the features in your specification expose information about the underlying platform to origins?
  • No.
• Does this specification allow an origin to send data to the underlying platform?
  • No.
• Do features in this specification enable access to device sensors?
  • No.
• Do features in this specification enable new script execution/loading mechanisms?
  • No.
• Do features in this specification allow an origin to access other devices?
  • No.
• Do features in this specification allow an origin some measure of control over a user agent’s native UI?
  • No.
• What temporary identifiers do the features in this specification create or expose to the web?
  • None - no new identifiers are created or exposed.
• How does this specification distinguish between behavior in first-party and third-party contexts?
  • No.
• How do the features in this specification work in the context of a browser’s Private Browsing or Incognito mode?
  • No differently.
• Does this specification have both "Security Considerations" and "Privacy Considerations" sections?
  • Yes.
• Do features in your specification enable origins to downgrade default security protections?
  • No.
• How does your feature handle non-"fully active" documents?
  • If the document doesn't get destroyed on navigation and instead is kept around non-fully active/BFCached it will not fire. It will fire if the document is discarded while non-fully active.
• What should this questionnaire have asked?
  • Nothing to add.