Closed
Bug 1006811
Opened 10 years ago
Closed 10 years ago
Assertion failure: is<T>(), at jsobj.h:1130 or Crash [@ js::types::TypeSet::mightBeMIRType] with Proxy
Categories
(Core :: JavaScript Engine: JIT, defect)
Tracking
()
VERIFIED
FIXED
mozilla32
Tracking | Status | |
---|---|---|
firefox30 | --- | unaffected |
firefox31 | + | verified |
firefox32 | + | verified |
firefox-esr24 | --- | unaffected |
b2g-v1.2 | --- | unaffected |
b2g-v1.3 | --- | unaffected |
b2g-v1.3T | --- | unaffected |
b2g-v1.4 | --- | unaffected |
b2g-v2.0 | --- | fixed |
People
(Reporter: decoder, Assigned: h4writer)
Details
(4 keywords, Whiteboard: [jsbugmon:update])
Attachments
(2 files)
1.39 KB,
text/plain
|
Details | |
999 bytes,
patch
|
jandem
:
review+
Sylvestre
:
approval-mozilla-aurora+
abillings
:
sec-approval+
|
Details | Diff | Splinter Review |
The following testcase asserts on mozilla-central revision 87c8f870e2b9 (run with --fuzzing-safe --ion-eager): var proxy = Proxy.createFunction({}, function() { return "call"; }); assertEq(Function.prototype.bind.call(proxy)(), "call"); while ( actual = testfunc(0) ) var objRef = obj;
Reporter | ||
Comment 1•10 years ago
|
||
Reporter | ||
Comment 2•10 years ago
|
||
Crash trace from opt-build: Program received signal SIGSEGV, Segmentation fault. js::types::TypeSet::mightBeMIRType (this=0xba9050509008a6e, type=js::jit::MIRType_Undefined) at jsscript.cpp:3869 3869 } (gdb) bt 16 #0 js::types::TypeSet::mightBeMIRType (this=0xba9050509008a6e, type=js::jit::MIRType_Undefined) at jsscript.cpp:3869 #1 0x00000000005a8159 in ArgumentTypesMatch (calleeTypes=<optimized out>, def=<optimized out>) at jit/IonBuilder.cpp:5235 #2 ArgumentTypesMatch (calleeTypes=<optimized out>, def=<optimized out>) at jit/IonBuilder.cpp:5239 #3 js::jit::IonBuilder::testNeedsArgumentCheck (this=<optimized out>, target=0x7ffff4f52d40, callInfo=...) at jit/IonBuilder.cpp:5252 #4 0x00000000005a8366 in js::jit::IonBuilder::makeCallHelper (this=0x15d5d50, target=0x7ffff4f52d40, callInfo=..., cloneAtCallsite=false) at jit/IonBuilder.cpp:5338 #5 0x00000000005b54de in js::jit::IonBuilder::makeCall (this=0x15d5d50, target=<optimized out>, callInfo=..., cloneAtCallsite=<optimized out>) at jit/IonBuilder.cpp:5372 #6 0x0000000000613bc8 in js::jit::IonBuilder::inlineBoundFunction (this=0x15d5d50, nativeCallInfo=..., target=0x7ffff4f52d80) at jit/MCallOptimize.cpp:1952 #7 0x00000000005d3815 in inlineSingleCall (target=0x7ffff4f52d80, callInfo=..., this=0x15d5d50) at jit/IonBuilder.cpp:4295 #8 js::jit::IonBuilder::inlineCallsite (this=0x15d5d50, targets=..., originals=..., lambda=false, callInfo=...) at jit/IonBuilder.cpp:4342 #9 0x00000000005d3d48 in js::jit::IonBuilder::jsop_call (this=0x15d5d50, argc=0, constructing=false) at jit/IonBuilder.cpp:5155 #10 0x00000000005d4f8d in js::jit::IonBuilder::inspectOpcode (this=0x15d5d50, op=<optimized out>) at jit/IonBuilder.cpp:1593 #11 0x00000000005d5584 in js::jit::IonBuilder::traverseBytecode (this=0x15d5d50) at jit/IonBuilder.cpp:1284 #12 0x00000000005d606f in build (this=0x15d5d50) at jit/IonBuilder.cpp:740 #13 js::jit::IonBuilder::build (this=0x15d5d50) at jit/IonBuilder.cpp:628 #14 0x00000000005ef260 in IonCompile (optimizationLevel=js::jit::Optimization_Normal, recompile=false, executionMode=<optimized out>, constructing=<optimized out>, osrPc=<optimized out>, baselineFrame=0x15d5cd8, script=<optimized out>, cx=0x159e000) at jit/Ion.cpp:1897 #15 js::jit::Compile (cx=0x159e000, script=..., osrFrame=0x15d5cd8, osrPc=<optimized out>, constructing=<optimized out>, executionMode=<optimized out>) at jit/Ion.cpp:2122 (More stack frames follow...) (gdb) x /i $pc => 0x6eab40 <js::types::TypeSet::mightBeMIRType(js::jit::MIRType)>: mov (%rdi),%edx (gdb) info reg rdi rdi 0xba9050509008a6e 840208324665313902 That object pointer looks pretty bad, marking sec-critical.
Reporter | ||
Updated•10 years ago
|
Whiteboard: [jsbugmon:update,bisect] → [jsbugmon:update]
Reporter | ||
Comment 3•10 years ago
|
||
JSBugMon: Bisection requested, failed due to error (try manually).
Comment 4•10 years ago
|
||
I need to find out what's wrong with the bisection attempt, and/or try and get a bisection result.
Component: JavaScript Engine → JavaScript Engine: JIT
Flags: needinfo?(gary)
Comment 5•10 years ago
|
||
Can't help here - I cannot reproduce on local 64-bit deterministic threadsafe Linux debug/opt builds on 87c8f870e2b9 nor tip, and I also cannot reproduce using downloaded TBPL js binaries.
Flags: needinfo?(gary) → needinfo?(choller)
Comment 6•10 years ago
|
||
(and unlike bug 1006885, running this testcase repeatedly still doesn't show the issue for me.)
Comment 7•10 years ago
|
||
Retaking. I can reproduce with "--ion-parallel-compile=off --ion-eager".
Flags: needinfo?(choller) → needinfo?(gary)
Comment 8•10 years ago
|
||
autoBisect shows this is probably related to the following changeset: The first bad revision is: changeset: http://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/53649d31c8b4 user: Hannes Verschore date: Mon Apr 28 13:44:13 2014 +0200 summary: Bug 1001850 - IonMonkey: Remove the intermediate native call when calling a bound function, r=jandem Hannes, is bug 1001850 a likely regressor?
Flags: needinfo?(gary) → needinfo?(hv1989)
Assignee | ||
Comment 9•10 years ago
|
||
We should definitely check the object is a function before casting it to a function.
Updated•10 years ago
|
Attachment #8420355 -
Flags: review?(jdemooij) → review+
Assignee | ||
Updated•10 years ago
|
Assignee | ||
Comment 10•10 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 8420355 [details] [diff] [review] Patch [Security approval request comment] How easily could an exploit be constructed based on the patch? We know it can crash and do wrong things, but I didn't try to write an exploit. Shouldn't be to hard. Do comments in the patch, the check-in comment, or tests included in the patch paint a bulls-eye on the security problem? No extra info in the comments/tests/check-in comment Which older supported branches are affected by this flaw? FF31/FF32 only If not all supported branches, which bug introduced the flaw? Bug 1001850 Do you have backports for the affected branches? If not, how different, hard to create, and risky will they be? They are all the same How likely is this patch to cause regressions; how much testing does it need? Not likeley. It reverts to use the old path, which is still tested and was used before.
Attachment #8420355 -
Flags: sec-approval?
Comment 11•10 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 8420355 [details] [diff] [review] Patch sec-approval+ for trunk. Let's get an aurora patch made (if existing doesn't apply) and nominate it or this for aurora as well.
Attachment #8420355 -
Flags: sec-approval? → sec-approval+
Updated•10 years ago
|
Updated•10 years ago
|
Group: javascript-core-security
Assignee | ||
Comment 12•10 years ago
|
||
https://hg.mozilla.org/integration/mozilla-inbound/rev/7dabcbd22f09
Assignee | ||
Comment 13•10 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 8420355 [details] [diff] [review] Patch [Approval Request Comment] Bug caused by (feature/regressing bug #): Bug 1001850 User impact if declined: Possible crashes and exploits Testing completed (on m-c, etc.): m-c just landed Risk to taking this patch (and alternatives if risky): low. For impacted path this patch takes the old path again. String or IDL/UUID changes made by this patch: /
Attachment #8420355 -
Flags: approval-mozilla-aurora?
Comment 14•10 years ago
|
||
https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/7dabcbd22f09
Status: NEW → RESOLVED
Closed: 10 years ago
Resolution: --- → FIXED
Target Milestone: --- → mozilla32
Updated•10 years ago
|
Attachment #8420355 -
Flags: approval-mozilla-aurora? → approval-mozilla-aurora+
Comment 15•10 years ago
|
||
https://hg.mozilla.org/releases/mozilla-aurora/rev/0acb24de7e94
status-b2g-v1.2:
--- → unaffected
status-b2g-v1.3:
--- → unaffected
status-b2g-v1.3T:
--- → unaffected
status-b2g-v1.4:
--- → unaffected
status-b2g-v2.0:
--- → fixed
status-firefox-esr24:
--- → unaffected
Reporter | ||
Updated•10 years ago
|
Status: RESOLVED → VERIFIED
Reporter | ||
Comment 16•10 years ago
|
||
JSBugMon: This bug has been automatically verified fixed.
Updated•10 years ago
|
Group: javascript-core-security
Reporter | ||
Updated•10 years ago
|
Reporter | ||
Comment 17•10 years ago
|
||
JSBugMon: This bug has been automatically verified fixed on Fx31 JSBugMon: This bug has been automatically verified fixed on Fx32
Updated•9 years ago
|
Group: core-security → core-security-release
Updated•8 years ago
|
Group: core-security-release
You need to log in
before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description
•