Closed
Bug 612745
Opened 14 years ago
Closed 14 years ago
Prevent cross-thread XPConnect access to nsIClassInfo::MAIN_THREAD_ONLY-flagged objects
Categories
(Core :: XPConnect, defect)
Core
XPConnect
Tracking
()
RESOLVED
FIXED
mozilla2.0b8
Tracking | Status | |
---|---|---|
blocking2.0 | --- | beta8+ |
People
(Reporter: brendan, Assigned: brendan)
Details
(Whiteboard: fixed-in-tracemonkey)
Attachments
(1 file)
2.21 KB,
patch
|
gal
:
review+
|
Details | Diff | Splinter Review |
Summary says it all. /be
Assignee | ||
Comment 1•14 years ago
|
||
Seems to work, browsing with it. /be
Attachment #491748 -
Flags: review?(gal)
Updated•14 years ago
|
Attachment #491748 -
Flags: review?(gal) → review+
Assignee | ||
Comment 2•14 years ago
|
||
http://hg.mozilla.org/tracemonkey/rev/9bb386e639e5 /be
Status: NEW → ASSIGNED
Whiteboard: fixed-in-tracemonkey
Comment 3•14 years ago
|
||
http://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/9bb386e639e5
Status: ASSIGNED → RESOLVED
Closed: 14 years ago
Resolution: --- → FIXED
Comment 4•14 years ago
|
||
I don't think that's a full fix, don't we need a similar check in ConstructSlimWrapper? Also, can we just remove XPC_CHECK_WRAPPER_THREADSAFETY if it'll always be defined anyway?
Assignee | ||
Comment 5•14 years ago
|
||
(In reply to comment #4) > I don't think that's a full fix, don't we need a similar check in > ConstructSlimWrapper? Peter, can you file this one? Even better if you or a slimwrapper guru can fix. I'm overcommitted elsewhere. > Also, can we just remove XPC_CHECK_WRAPPER_THREADSAFETY if it'll always be defined anyway? Minimal change at this stage. /be
Updated•14 years ago
|
blocking2.0: --- → beta8+
Assignee | ||
Comment 6•14 years ago
|
||
Followup bugs: bug 618126 and bug 618128 (noted at https://wiki.mozilla.org/JavaScript/HandlingThreads). /be
Comment 7•14 years ago
|
||
So if I understand correctly, this prevents creating new wrappers for main-thread-only objects on a non-main thread, right? If a wrapper for such an object is in the scope of a runnable closure passed to the background thread then this patch doesn't help, as far as I can tell. It also doesn't help if the problem is the creation and/or refcounting of the C++ object, right? Because all that happens long before we try to create a wrapper for it...
You need to log in
before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description
•