Crash on reload - www.saab.com

RESOLVED DUPLICATE of bug 114292

Status

()

--
critical
RESOLVED DUPLICATE of bug 114292
17 years ago
17 years ago

People

(Reporter: markushuebner, Assigned: gordon)

Tracking

({crash, stackwanted})

Trunk
x86
Windows 2000
crash, stackwanted
Points:
---

Firefox Tracking Flags

(Not tracked)

Details

(URL)

Attachments

(1 attachment, 1 obsolete attachment)

(Reporter)

Description

17 years ago
Going to URL 
http://www.saab.de/home/DE/de/index.xml
presents an empty page.
Doing a reload crashes mozilla - build 2001121103 on win2k.
TB370866W

When JavaScript is disabled the page is displaying something, although when 
doing a view-source mozilla also crashes (TB370931Y)
(Reporter)

Updated

17 years ago
Keywords: crash, stackwanted
Summary: Crash on reload - www.saab. → Crash on reload - www.saab.com

Comment 1

17 years ago
Stephen, can you retreive Talkback data please ?

Comment 2

17 years ago
On linux 2001121108 it doesn't crash but doesn't display anything either.
no crash with win2k build 20011212..

Comment 4

17 years ago
I get a blank page but no crash. I will attach the html source.

Comment 5

17 years ago
Created attachment 61444 [details]
Backtrace of a crash that happened when I tried to save this page.

I tried to save this page to disk, and then I get a reproducable crash. I have
attached the backtrace.

Comment 6

17 years ago
Apparently that's an unrelated save-as crasher that I now filed as bug 114886.
Sorry for spam.

Updated

17 years ago
Attachment #61444 - Attachment is obsolete: true
I get nothing when I query Talkback for that stack, sorry.

Comment 8

17 years ago
Confirming for build 2001121103 Win2k
Talkbacks:
TB393692Z
TB393653G
Stack Signature  ntdll.dll + 0x4a30d (0x77fca30d) 71a50d2e
Trigger Time 2001-12-12 11:41:43
Email Address
URL visited
User Comments
Build ID 2001121109
Product ID MozillaTrunk
Platform
Operating System Win32
Module
Trigger Reason Access violation
Stack Trace
ntdll.dll + 0x4a30d (0x77fca30d)
ntdll.dll + 0x49709 (0x77fc9709)
MSVCRT.DLL + 0x113d (0x7800113d)
PR_Free [../../../../pr/src/malloc/prmem.c, line 84]
nsMemoryImpl::Free [d:\builds\seamonkey\mozilla\xpcom\base\nsMemoryImpl.cpp,
line 343]
nsMemory::Free [d:\builds\seamonkey\mozilla\xpcom\glue\nsMemory.cpp, line 100]
nsStr::Free [d:\builds\seamonkey\mozilla\string\obsolete\nsStr.cpp, line 711]
nsStr::Destroy [d:\builds\seamonkey\mozilla\string\obsolete\nsStr.cpp, line 104]
nsCString::~nsCString [d:\builds\seamonkey\mozilla\string\obsolete\nsString.cpp,
line 126]
nsCString::`scalar deleting destructor'
nsCacheMetaData::FreeElement
[d:\builds\seamonkey\mozilla\netwerk\cache\src\nsCacheMetaData.cpp, line 319]
PL_DHashTableEnumerate [d:\builds\seamonkey\mozilla\xpcom\ds\pldhash.c, line 602]
nsCacheMetaData::Finalize
[d:\builds\seamonkey\mozilla\netwerk\cache\src\nsCacheMetaData.cpp, line 266]
PL_DHashTableFinish [d:\builds\seamonkey\mozilla\xpcom\ds\pldhash.c, line 317]
nsCacheMetaData::~nsCacheMetaData
[d:\builds\seamonkey\mozilla\netwerk\cache\src\nsCacheMetaData.cpp, line 56]
nsCacheEntry::~nsCacheEntry
[d:\builds\seamonkey\mozilla\netwerk\cache\src\nsCacheEntry.cpp, line 67]
nsDiskCacheDevice::DeactivateEntry
[d:\builds\seamonkey\mozilla\netwerk\cache\src\nsDiskCacheDevice.cpp, line 445] 

Updated

17 years ago
Blocks: 115423

Comment 10

17 years ago
->cache
Assignee: asa → gordon
Component: Browser-General → Networking: Cache
QA Contact: doronr → tever

Comment 11

17 years ago
Created attachment 63390 [details]
Stack trace of a crash from double deleting nsCacheEntry

I thought I'd add that my debug build crashed in nsCacheEntry destructor. mKey
was 0xDDDDDDDD wish means the cache entry was being double deleted. This was
from a pull of about December 31st. I was running Choffman's browser buster in
two windows hitting top 100 and random sites. Had Chatzilla, address book, and
Composer up.

Talkback incident 828602 seems similar to mine. I think these may be related
since the crashing in freeing memory might be do to double freeing. My debug
build probably just caught it sooner.
*** Bug 118716 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

Comment 13

17 years ago
this could be bug 114292 again.  Stack trace is somewhat different though so I'm
not certain.   Trace in comment #11 appears to be 114292.

(Assignee)

Comment 14

17 years ago
Yes, I think this is bug 114292.  Marking as duplicate.

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 114292 ***
Status: NEW → RESOLVED
Last Resolved: 17 years ago
Resolution: --- → DUPLICATE
You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.