Closed
Bug 1072847
Opened 9 years ago
Closed 9 years ago
Crash [@ _moz_cairo_surface_destroy] with long DOM Notification, only on Windows
Categories
(Core :: Graphics, defect)
Tracking
()
VERIFIED
FIXED
mozilla36
Tracking | Status | |
---|---|---|
firefox33 | --- | wontfix |
firefox34 | --- | verified |
firefox35 | --- | verified |
firefox36 | + | verified |
firefox-esr31 | 34+ | verified |
b2g-v1.4 | --- | unaffected |
b2g-v2.0 | --- | unaffected |
b2g-v2.0M | --- | unaffected |
b2g-v2.1 | --- | unaffected |
b2g-v2.2 | --- | unaffected |
People
(Reporter: jruderman, Assigned: jrmuizel)
References
Details
(4 keywords, Whiteboard: [adv-main34+][adv-esr31.3+])
Attachments
(3 files)
175 bytes,
text/html
|
Details | |
193.40 KB,
text/plain
|
Details | |
379 bytes,
patch
|
BenWa
:
review+
abillings
:
approval-mozilla-aurora+
abillings
:
approval-mozilla-beta+
bkerensa
:
approval-mozilla-esr31+
abillings
:
sec-approval+
|
Details | Diff | Splinter Review |
No description provided.
Reporter | ||
Comment 1•9 years ago
|
||
Comment 2•9 years ago
|
||
Crash at poisoned memory, I'm going to call this critical-uaf based on my first glance.
Keywords: csectype-uaf,
sec-critical
Is this crashing the nightly, or does it need to be asan build or some such? I don't crash on my Windows 7 with 2014-09-25 nightly with this about:support graphics section: Adapter Description NVIDIA Quadro 600 Adapter Drivers nvd3dumx,nvwgf2umx,nvwgf2umx nvd3dum,nvwgf2um,nvwgf2um Adapter RAM 1024 ClearType Parameters Gamma: 2200 Pixel Structure: R ClearType Level: 100 Enhanced Contrast: 50 Device ID 0x0df8 Direct2D Enabled true DirectWrite Enabled true (6.2.9200.16571) Driver Date 5-19-2014 Driver Version 9.18.13.3788 GPU #2 Active false GPU Accelerated Windows 1/1 Direct3D 11 (OMTC) Subsys ID 083510de Vendor ID 0x10de WebGL Renderer Google Inc. -- ANGLE (NVIDIA Quadro 600 Direct3D9Ex vs_3_0 ps_3_0) windowLayerManagerRemote true AzureCanvasBackend direct2d AzureContentBackend direct2d AzureFallbackCanvasBackend cairo AzureSkiaAccelerated 0
Crashed for me with Win7SP1 and 9-25. Adapter Description: NVIDIA Quadro 600 Adapter Drivers: nvd3dumx,nvwgf2umx,nvwgf2umx nvd3dum,nvwgf2um,nvwgf2um Adapter RAM: 1024 ClearType Parameters: D [ Gamma: 1800 Pixel Structure: R ClearType Level: 100 Enhanced Contrast: 50 ] D [ Gamma: 1800 Pixel Structure: R ClearType Level: 100 Enhanced Contrast: 50 ] Device ID: 0x0df8 Direct2D Enabled: true DirectWrite Enabled: true (6.2.9200.16571) Driver Date: 12-29-2012 Driver Version: 9.18.13.1090 GPU #2 Active: false GPU Accelerated Windows: 1/1 Direct3D 11 (OMTC) Subsys ID: 083510de Vendor ID: 0x10de WebGL Renderer: Google Inc. -- ANGLE (NVIDIA Quadro 600 Direct3D9Ex vs_3_0 ps_3_0) windowLayerManagerRemote: true AzureCanvasBackend: direct2d AzureContentBackend: direct2d AzureFallbackCanvasBackend: cairo AzureSkiaAccelerated: 0
Looks like our machines differ only on driver version, but before you ask me to update, we have reports of this on later versions as well. https://crash-stats.mozilla.com/search/?signature=%3D_moz_cairo_surface_destroy&address=~5a5a5&_facets=signature&_facets=platform&_facets=platform_version&_facets=release_channel&_facets=adapter_vendor_id&_facets=build_id&_facets=adapter_driver_version&_columns=date&_columns=signature&_columns=product&_columns=version&_columns=build_id&_columns=platform There's a clear beginning to this with build 20140920030206.
Aha, all the app notes say: Attempt to create DrawTarget for invalid surface So these surfaces were already previously destroyed by InitAlreadyReferenced from bug 1069584.
Flags: needinfo?(bas)
There was a large spike in these crashes with nightly build 20141011030203. In builds since then, this is the #2 crash on Win32, #1 on Win64.
Unsure this is graphics, but since this is urgent, and dealing with the time difference, Jeff will take a look as well.
Flags: needinfo?(jmuizelaar)
Assignee | ||
Comment 10•9 years ago
|
||
It looks like this is caused by trying to create D3D11 compositor for a very wide window and things going bad from there.
Flags: needinfo?(jmuizelaar)
Assignee | ||
Comment 11•9 years ago
|
||
Assignee | ||
Updated•9 years ago
|
Attachment #8504817 -
Flags: review?(bgirard)
Updated•9 years ago
|
Attachment #8504817 -
Flags: review?(bgirard) → review+
Assignee | ||
Comment 12•9 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 8504817 [details] [diff] [review] Initialize mSurface [Security approval request comment] How easily could an exploit be constructed based on the patch? I don't think very easily. This is basically using an initialized member. There are no vtables on the member so getting execution seems hard. Do comments in the patch, the check-in comment, or tests included in the patch paint a bulls-eye on the security problem? Yes. Which older supported branches are affected by this flaw? Probably all of them. Do you have backports for the affected branches? If not, how different, hard to create, and risky will they be? The backports would be easy. How likely is this patch to cause regressions; how much testing does it need? It should not cause regressions and shouldn't need very much testing.
Attachment #8504817 -
Flags: sec-approval?
Updated•9 years ago
|
status-firefox33:
--- → wontfix
status-firefox34:
--- → affected
status-firefox35:
--- → affected
status-firefox36:
--- → affected
status-firefox-esr31:
--- → affected
tracking-firefox36:
--- → +
tracking-firefox-esr31:
--- → 34+
Whiteboard: [checkin on 10/28]
Comment 13•9 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 8504817 [details] [diff] [review] Initialize mSurface Please check in on Oct 28 for trunk. Sec-approval+. We'll want this on Aurora, Beta, and ESR31 at that point as well. Can you prepare and nominate patches?
Attachment #8504817 -
Flags: sec-approval? → sec-approval+
Updated•9 years ago
|
Assignee: nobody → jmuizelaar
Comment on attachment 8504817 [details] [diff] [review] Initialize mSurface Approval Request Comment [Feature/regressing bug #]: [User impact if declined]: Use after free, security hole. [Describe test coverage new/current, TBPL]: [Risks and why]: None, we're initializing uninitialized variable. [String/UUID change made/needed]: None. Same patch applies cleanly to Aurora and Beta.
Attachment #8504817 -
Flags: approval-mozilla-beta?
Attachment #8504817 -
Flags: approval-mozilla-aurora?
Updated•9 years ago
|
Keywords: checkin-needed
Updated•9 years ago
|
Attachment #8504817 -
Flags: approval-mozilla-beta?
Attachment #8504817 -
Flags: approval-mozilla-beta+
Attachment #8504817 -
Flags: approval-mozilla-aurora?
Attachment #8504817 -
Flags: approval-mozilla-aurora+
Comment 16•9 years ago
|
||
Can't land until the 28th per comment 13. Also, needs an esr31 nomination still.
Keywords: checkin-needed
My bad - I read comment 13 as "make sure this lands before or on Oct 28th", but I guess it means "please do not land before Oct 28th".
![]() |
||
Comment 18•9 years ago
|
||
It's unfortunate that the checkin has had to wait so long. Meanwhile this continues to be a topcrash on nightly and aurora. It's not clear to me why waiting is better in this instance.
Comment 19•9 years ago
|
||
It is almost the 28th now, so it doesn't matter much, but in the future if there's some stability concern you should mention that in the approval request, or followup with Al Billings or Dan Veditz to see if something could be landed sooner. There wasn't anything in this bug prior to your comment that indicated this was a top crash.
![]() |
||
Comment 20•9 years ago
|
||
The topcrash is being tracked as the dependent bug 1071079. You're right that it's not obvious to someone just looking at this bug. I'll do better about calling attention to this kind of thing in the future.
Updated•9 years ago
|
Keywords: checkin-needed
Comment 21•9 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 8504817 [details] [diff] [review] Initialize mSurface [Approval Request Comment] If this is not a sec:{high,crit} bug, please state case for ESR consideration: sec-critical User impact if declined: sec-critical Fix Landed on Version: not landed yet Risk to taking this patch (and alternatives if risky): low, simple patch String or UUID changes made by this patch: nope
Attachment #8504817 -
Flags: approval-mozilla-esr31?
Comment 22•9 years ago
|
||
https://hg.mozilla.org/integration/mozilla-inbound/rev/1c53d6dbd263
Keywords: checkin-needed
Whiteboard: [checkin on 10/28]
Comment 23•9 years ago
|
||
https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/1c53d6dbd263
Status: NEW → RESOLVED
Closed: 9 years ago
Resolution: --- → FIXED
Target Milestone: --- → mozilla36
Comment 24•9 years ago
|
||
https://hg.mozilla.org/releases/mozilla-aurora/rev/286954ccc3ae https://hg.mozilla.org/releases/mozilla-beta/rev/d5a855ee2081
Updated•9 years ago
|
Attachment #8504817 -
Flags: approval-mozilla-esr31? → approval-mozilla-esr31+
Comment 25•9 years ago
|
||
https://hg.mozilla.org/releases/mozilla-esr31/rev/c5ffa5e63d99
status-b2g-v1.4:
--- → unaffected
status-b2g-v2.0:
--- → unaffected
status-b2g-v2.0M:
--- → unaffected
status-b2g-v2.1:
--- → unaffected
status-b2g-v2.2:
--- → unaffected
Updated•9 years ago
|
Whiteboard: [adv-main34+][adv-esr31.3+]
Comment 26•9 years ago
|
||
Reproduced the original crash several times on my Win 7 SP1 x64 (VM) and Win 8.1 x64 using the following build: - http://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/firefox/nightly/2014/10/2014-10-11-03-02-03-mozilla-central/ OS's used: - Windows 8.1 x64 - Windows 7 SP1 x64 (VM) Went through verification using the following builds: - http://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/firefox/nightly/2014-11-24-03-02-07-mozilla-central/ - http://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/firefox/nightly/2014-11-24-00-40-01-mozilla-aurora/ - http://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/firefox/releases/34.0b11/ - http://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/firefox/nightly/2014-11-24-00-05-01-mozilla-esr31/ Went through the following test cases for each OS/Build listed above: - opened the poc in several different windows/tabs - opened the poc in several different private windows/tabs - opened the poc in several e10s windows/tabs
Status: RESOLVED → VERIFIED
Updated•8 years ago
|
Group: core-security
You need to log in
before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description
•