New issue
Advanced search Search tips
Note: Color blocks (like or ) mean that a user may not be available. Tooltip shows the reason.

Issue 615641 link

Starred by 3 users

Issue metadata

Status: Duplicate
Owner:
Closed: Jun 2016
Cc:
Components:
EstimatedDays: ----
NextAction: ----
OS: All
Pri: 2
Type: Bug



Sign in to add a comment

Impossible to unselect "Always allowed to run" for Chromium PDF Viewer

Reported by martin.s...@gmail.com, May 28 2016

Issue description

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/51.0.2704.63 Safari/537.36

Steps to reproduce the problem:
1. Select Content settings -> Let me choose when to run plugin content.
2. Open chrome://plugins/
3. Observe that the "Always allowed to run" checkbox for the Chromium PDF Viewer is checked and grayed out.

What is the expected behavior?

What went wrong?
It is now impossible to not have the PDF viewer loaded automatically without disabling the plugin completely.

Did this work before? Yes v50.

Chrome version: 51.0.2704.63  Channel: stable
OS Version: 
Flash Version: Shockwave Flash 21.0 r0
 
Components: -UI Internals>Plugins>PDF
Status: Untriaged (was: Unconfirmed)
The disable link should still work though.
Yes, as I wrote the only options now are to run the plugin unconditionally or disabling it completely.

I also have confirmed that it is reproducible on Windows 10 and OS X.
Cc: msramek@chromium.org wfh@chromium.org
Components: Privacy
Labels: -OS-Linux OS-All
Owner: wfh@chromium.org
Status: Available (was: Untriaged)
This is intentional. The change was introduced in https://codereview.chromium.org/1857263004, see issue 509251 for more background.

I assume that this was a workaround not to break the PDF plugin, since the exact request from issue 509251 ("Let me choose..." as default setting, "Allow..." as an exception for the PDF plugin) was not possible to specify in the policy?

FWIW, there is some refactoring going on in policy content settings, so it probably will be possible soonish. If we do make the distinction that the PDF plugin is a plugin and not an integral part of Chrome, I would prefer that it does respect content settings when the underlying issue is solved.

In the meantime, we should at least add an indicator to chrome://plugins explaining why the checkbox is grayed out (e.g. "trusted plugins are always enabled"). We use such indicators in chrome://settings.

wfh@, would you mind taking this?

Comment 4 by wfh@chromium.org, Jun 1 2016

Cc: lafo...@chromium.org
Mergedinto: 509251
Status: Duplicate (was: Available)
We decided not to add any explanation text at the time - pdf is a core component of Chrome and unless disabled it will always run.

I don't think we should add any text now, perhaps +laforge has a view on this. My view is leave it, especially if the chrome://plugins page is about to be redesigned anyway. see  issue 615738 

Can you provide more details on "some refactoring going on in policy content settings" e.g. a bug link?

Comment 5 by wfh@chromium.org, Jun 1 2016

Cc: ainslie@chromium.org
+ainslie for the UI perspective on this all.
Cc: hua...@chromium.org
If PDF is a core component that is always allowed to run, would it make sense to remove that checkbox, or remove it from chrome://plugins entirely? I was not able to find the reason why the checkbox is disabled without looking into the code, so I guess this must be confusing to users and such bug reports will keep coming. (Though I agree that we can wait for the redesign first.)

Ad policy settings refactoring: huangs@ is working on it.
-  issue 568031 
- internal design docs:
  https://docs.google.com/document/d/1HmNEFyYMhLcZStb51J5DqKDpLKLzk54zBnICc5C925w/
  https://docs.google.com/document/d/1yED4jq57IzRQyw6UIDSHjRLTTZFQB5hhHcTlHYcU5cY/

Comment 7 by wfh@chromium.org, Jun 1 2016

Re: #6 - We still needed to expose a way for users to disable PDF if they wanted to always open PDF in e.g. Adobe Reader, so the plugin had to appear in chrome://plugins.

I still vote for leaving this as is until the larger redesign arrives via  issue 615738 
Yeah, I agree, we should leave it alone until we settle on what changes that we want to make for 615738.  

Sign in to add a comment