Closed
Bug 793848
Opened 12 years ago
Closed 12 years ago
Crash with <svg:use> removed during its own scrollbar attribute mutation event
Categories
(Core :: Layout, defect)
Tracking
()
People
(Reporter: jruderman, Assigned: smaug)
References
Details
(5 keywords, Whiteboard: [adv-track-main17+][adv-track-esr17+] The current testcase is only useful on recent versions)
Crash Data
Attachments
(3 files)
735 bytes,
text/html
|
Details | |
19.95 KB,
text/html
|
Details | |
1.06 KB,
patch
|
bzbarsky
:
review+
lsblakk
:
approval-mozilla-aurora+
lsblakk
:
approval-mozilla-beta+
lsblakk
:
approval-mozilla-esr10+
dveditz
:
sec-approval+
|
Details | Diff | Splinter Review |
bp-0cada683-3e71-482d-8d98-0c2d92120924 I'm guessing this is a regression from bug 778810, which added the function mozilla::ScrollbarActivity::ActivityOccurred. Why does scrolling set DOM attributes?
Reporter | ||
Comment 1•12 years ago
|
||
Assignee | ||
Comment 2•12 years ago
|
||
Why do we end up dispatching mutation event. Scrollbars should be native anonymous.
Updated•12 years ago
|
Keywords: regression
Version: Trunk → 17 Branch
Assignee | ||
Updated•12 years ago
|
Assignee: nobody → bugs
Group: core-security
Assignee | ||
Comment 3•12 years ago
|
||
Shouldn't rely on the element type, but frame type. In the test we end up getting parent frame which is ScrollFrame.
Attachment #664662 -
Flags: review?(bzbarsky)
Updated•12 years ago
|
status-firefox-esr10:
--- → unaffected
status-firefox16:
--- → unaffected
status-firefox17:
--- → affected
status-firefox18:
--- → affected
tracking-firefox17:
--- → +
tracking-firefox18:
--- → +
Keywords: csec-uaf,
sec-critical
Assignee | ||
Comment 4•12 years ago
|
||
As far as I see, this is a really old bug.
Comment 5•12 years ago
|
||
I loaded the testcase on Windows: * 15.0.1: no crash * 16.0b4: no crash * 17.0a2: bp-101eb84b-d2b6-4f41-9dbf-37a5c2120926 * 18.0a1: bp-5894bccb-d4ac-448a-b32b-4c32d2120926
Crash Signature: [@ mozilla::ScrollbarActivity::ActivityOccurred] → [@ mozilla::ScrollbarActivity::ActivityOccurred]
[@ mozilla::ScrollbarActivity::CancelActivityFinishedTimer()]
[@ nsListScrollSmoother::Stop()]
Keywords: regression
OS: Mac OS X → All
Hardware: x86_64 → All
Assignee | ||
Comment 6•12 years ago
|
||
Sure, using *that* testcase. But I don't see why the problem wouldn't happen with some other testcase too.
Comment 7•12 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 664662 [details] [diff] [review] patch r=me
Attachment #664662 -
Flags: review?(bzbarsky) → review+
Assignee | ||
Comment 8•12 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 664662 [details] [diff] [review] patch [Security approval request comment] How easily can the security issue be deduced from the patch? I'd say quite easily. Just try to make svg:use to use some unusual frame type Do comments in the patch, the check-in comment, or tests included in the patch paint a bulls-eye on the security problem? NA Which older supported branches are affected by this flaw? All Do you have backports for the affected branches? If not, how different, hard to create, and risky will they be? The same patch should work in older branches too. (if the patch doesn't apply cleanly, the changes should be minor syntactic changes. The code is several years old.) How likely is this patch to cause regressions; how much testing does it need? Should be reasonable safe. In normal cases svg:use should behave like svg:use.
Attachment #664662 -
Flags: sec-approval?
Attachment #664662 -
Flags: approval-mozilla-esr10?
Attachment #664662 -
Flags: approval-mozilla-beta?
Attachment #664662 -
Flags: approval-mozilla-aurora?
Comment 9•12 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 664662 [details] [diff] [review] patch sec-approval+ assuming you can get branch landing approval from drivers
Attachment #664662 -
Flags: sec-approval? → sec-approval+
Comment 10•12 years ago
|
||
(In reply to Olli Pettay [:smaug] from comment #8) > Which older supported branches are affected by this flaw? > All Even though we don't crash in 15/16? Why are those branches marked as unaffected? We're leaning towards not taking this for FF16 to limit risk, since this was internally reported.
Assignee | ||
Comment 11•12 years ago
|
||
So I can certainly get access to supposed-to-be-native-anonymous element in FF16. So far no crash, but I don't see why.
Assignee | ||
Comment 12•12 years ago
|
||
If we don't take this to FF16, should we land the patch closer to FF17 release?
Comment 13•12 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 664662 [details] [diff] [review] patch Longstanding issue, internally reported, and FF16 doesn't crash. I don't think this qualifies for our final beta. Setting the sec-approval flag back to ? to answer the question of when to land on Central/Aurora/(next Beta).
Attachment #664662 -
Flags: sec-approval?
Attachment #664662 -
Flags: sec-approval+
Attachment #664662 -
Flags: approval-mozilla-esr10?
Attachment #664662 -
Flags: approval-mozilla-esr10-
Attachment #664662 -
Flags: approval-mozilla-beta?
Attachment #664662 -
Flags: approval-mozilla-beta-
Attachment #664662 -
Flags: approval-mozilla-aurora?
Attachment #664662 -
Flags: approval-mozilla-aurora-
Updated•12 years ago
|
status-firefox15:
unaffected → ---
Whiteboard: Wait until Oct 21 to land
Comment 14•12 years ago
|
||
We'll want a test for this that we can check in once we've release Fx17.
status-firefox19:
--- → affected
tracking-firefox-esr10:
--- → 17+
tracking-firefox19:
--- → +
Flags: in-testsuite?
Keywords: testcase-wanted
Whiteboard: Wait until Oct 21 to land → The current testcase is only useful on recent versions
Comment 15•12 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 664662 [details] [diff] [review] patch sec-approval+, re-requesting branch approvals.
Attachment #664662 -
Flags: sec-approval?
Attachment #664662 -
Flags: sec-approval+
Attachment #664662 -
Flags: approval-mozilla-esr10?
Attachment #664662 -
Flags: approval-mozilla-esr10-
Attachment #664662 -
Flags: approval-mozilla-beta?
Attachment #664662 -
Flags: approval-mozilla-beta-
Attachment #664662 -
Flags: approval-mozilla-aurora?
Attachment #664662 -
Flags: approval-mozilla-aurora-
Assignee | ||
Comment 16•12 years ago
|
||
https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/ae051b7f7e4e
Status: NEW → RESOLVED
Closed: 12 years ago
Resolution: --- → FIXED
Updated•12 years ago
|
Target Milestone: --- → mozilla19
Updated•12 years ago
|
Attachment #664662 -
Flags: approval-mozilla-esr10?
Attachment #664662 -
Flags: approval-mozilla-esr10+
Attachment #664662 -
Flags: approval-mozilla-beta?
Attachment #664662 -
Flags: approval-mozilla-beta+
Attachment #664662 -
Flags: approval-mozilla-aurora?
Attachment #664662 -
Flags: approval-mozilla-aurora+
Assignee | ||
Comment 17•12 years ago
|
||
https://hg.mozilla.org/releases/mozilla-beta/rev/e77259feea47 https://hg.mozilla.org/releases/mozilla-aurora/rev/dcc60baeca75 https://hg.mozilla.org/releases/mozilla-esr10/rev/92ef4d0a9c88
Target Milestone: mozilla19 → ---
Updated•12 years ago
|
Whiteboard: The current testcase is only useful on recent versions → [adv-track-main17+][adv-track-esr17+] The current testcase is only useful on recent versions
Updated•11 years ago
|
Group: core-security
Comment 18•11 years ago
|
||
Crash test: https://hg.mozilla.org/integration/mozilla-inbound/rev/eb0da62e1348
Flags: in-testsuite? → in-testsuite+
Updated•9 years ago
|
Keywords: testcase-wanted
You need to log in
before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description
•