1152177 - "Assertion failure: js::CurrentThreadCanAccessRuntime(runtime_)" with watch() in Worker

Status: RESOLVED FIXED

(Core :: JavaScript Engine, defect)

Description

[Jesse Ruderman]

Attachment: testcase

1. Create a profile with:
     e10 disabled
     https://www.squarefree.com/extensions/domFuzzLite3.xpi installed
2. Run: firefox -profile <profiledir> o.html

Assertion failure: js::CurrentThreadCanAccessRuntime(runtime_), at ../../dist/include/js/HeapAPI.h:127

Comment 1

[Jesse Ruderman]

Attachment: stack

Comment 2

[Ben Turner (not reading bugmail, use the needinfo flag!)]

This looks like JS mostly...

Comment 3

[Terrence Cole [:terrence]]

Good find! On first glance this appears to be a missing check for permanent atoms when pre-barriering one inside a jsid. I'll take a closer look this afternoon.

Comment 4

[Terrence Cole [:terrence]]

Attachment: make_jsid_and_value_barriers_symetrical-v0.diff

My guess was correct. The attached patch makes the jsid pre barrier have the same structure as the Value pre barrier. It also MOZ_CRASHES if we try to use the zone-specified barrier outside HeapSlot.

Comment 5

[Jon Coppeard (:jonco)]

Comment on attachment 8589948 [details] [diff] [review]
make_jsid_and_value_barriers_symetrical-v0.diff

Review of attachment 8589948 [details] [diff] [review]:
-----------------------------------------------------------------

The jsid barrier change looks good.

For the preBarrier() overload that takes a zone, can we just not define it except in InternalGCMethods<Value>?

Comment 6

[Terrence Cole [:terrence]]

https://treeherder.mozilla.org/#/jobs?repo=try&revision=36fa7dc616ee
https://hg.mozilla.org/integration/mozilla-inbound/rev/fa5dc09027fd

Comment 7

[Carsten Book [:Tomcat]]

https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/fa5dc09027fd

Comment 8

[(PTO June 19-July 7) Ryan VanderMeulen]

Does this affect any older versions?

Comment 9

[Terrence Cole [:terrence]]

(In reply to Ryan VanderMeulen [:RyanVM UTC-4] from comment #8)
> Does this affect any older versions?

Right, this needs to get uplifted basically everywhere.

Comment 10

[(PTO June 19-July 7) Ryan VanderMeulen]

Sounds like this bug needs a sec rating and possibly a retroactive sec-approval request then too.

Comment 11

[Terrence Cole [:terrence]]

Comment on attachment 8589948 [details] [diff] [review]
make_jsid_and_value_barriers_symetrical-v0.diff

[Security approval request comment]
How easily could an exploit be constructed based on the patch?
Not easily.

Do comments in the patch, the check-in comment, or tests included in the patch paint a bulls-eye on the security problem?
Not at all.

Which older supported branches are affected by this flaw?
All of them.

If not all supported branches, which bug introduced the flaw?
-

Do you have backports for the affected branches? If not, how different, hard to create, and risky will they be?
Should be simple to backport.

How likely is this patch to cause regressions; how much testing does it need?
Unlikely to cause regressions.

Comment 12

[Andrew McCreight [:mccr8]]

This sounds kind of bad but hard to exploit so I'm going to set it to sec-high.

Comment 13

[(PTO June 19-July 7) Ryan VanderMeulen]

Please nominate this for Aurora/Beta/esr31 approval when you get a chance.

Comment 14

[(PTO June 19-July 7) Ryan VanderMeulen]

BTW, this has conflicts on Aurora, so please do post a rebased patch for that (and beta if necessary).

Comment 15

[Daniel Veditz [:dveditz]]

Comment on attachment 8589948 [details] [diff] [review]
make_jsid_and_value_barriers_symetrical-v0.diff

sec-approval=dveditz

Comment 16

[Terrence Cole [:terrence]]

Attachment: backport_1152177_aurora-v0.diff

Here is a backport for Aurora.

Comment 17

[Terrence Cole [:terrence]]

Comment on attachment 8593542 [details] [diff] [review]
backport_1152177_aurora-v0.diff

[Security approval request comment]
How easily could an exploit be constructed based on the patch?
Not easily.

Do comments in the patch, the check-in comment, or tests included in the patch paint a bulls-eye on the security problem?
Not at all.

Which older supported branches are affected by this flaw?
Everything with permanent atoms and incremental gc, which is all of them at this point.

If not all supported branches, which bug introduced the flaw?
n/a

Do you have backports for the affected branches? If not, how different, hard to create, and risky will they be?
Shouldn't be particularly hard to backport.

How likely is this patch to cause regressions; how much testing does it need?
Has been on m-i for a week; risk is pretty low.

Comment 18

[Andrew McCreight [:mccr8]]

Comment on attachment 8593542 [details] [diff] [review]
backport_1152177_aurora-v0.diff

Review of attachment 8593542 [details] [diff] [review]:
-----------------------------------------------------------------

This is just a backport of the other patch, right?  You don't need a separate sec-approval for it, as the assumption is any adversary could see the m-c checkin.  Just flag it for approval-mozilla-aurora.

Comment 19

[Terrence Cole [:terrence]]

Comment on attachment 8593542 [details] [diff] [review]
backport_1152177_aurora-v0.diff

NOTE: Please see https://wiki.mozilla.org/Release_Management/B2G_Landing to better understand the B2G approval process and landings.

[Approval Request Comment]
Bug caused by (feature/regressing bug #): ancient
User impact if declined: occasional, rare crashes
Testing completed: 1 week on m-i
Risk to taking this patch (and alternatives if risky): low 
String or UUID changes made by this patch: none

Comment 20

[(PTO June 19-July 7) Ryan VanderMeulen]

https://hg.mozilla.org/releases/mozilla-aurora/rev/0100f5c33e38
https://hg.mozilla.org/releases/mozilla-beta/rev/d79194507f32

The attached patch applies fine to b2g37 as well. Has conflicts from 34 down, though, which Terrence is currently rebasing through.

Comment 21

[(PTO June 19-July 7) Ryan VanderMeulen]

https://hg.mozilla.org/releases/mozilla-b2g37_v2_2/rev/239e61f3b0db

Comment 22

[Terrence Cole [:terrence]]

Attachment: backport_1152177_b2g34.diff

Here is a backport for b2g34.

Comment 23

[(PTO June 19-July 7) Ryan VanderMeulen]

https://hg.mozilla.org/releases/mozilla-b2g34_v2_1/rev/685fa69b59dc
https://hg.mozilla.org/releases/mozilla-b2g34_v2_1s/rev/685fa69b59dc

Comment 24

[(PTO June 19-July 7) Ryan VanderMeulen]

Still needs backporting to b2g32/esr31/b2g30.

Comment 25

[Terrence Cole [:terrence]]

Attachment: backport_1152177-b2g32-v0.diff

Finally got this working on on b2g32; sorry for the delay.

Comment 26

[(PTO June 19-July 7) Ryan VanderMeulen]

Depressingly, esr31 is all different yet again :(

Comment 27

[Terrence Cole [:terrence]]

Attachment: backport_1152177_esr31.diff

Here you go.

Comment 28

[(PTO June 19-July 7) Ryan VanderMeulen]

https://hg.mozilla.org/releases/mozilla-b2g32_v2_0/rev/9a0629dbe008
https://hg.mozilla.org/releases/mozilla-b2g32_v2_0m/rev/9a0629dbe008
https://hg.mozilla.org/releases/mozilla-b2g30_v1_4/rev/eeda70f179d1
https://hg.mozilla.org/releases/mozilla-esr31/rev/068fedc4a117

Comment 29

[Bogdan Maris, Desktop Test Engineering]

Reproduced the initial issue on Asan build from 2015-04-07, verified that this issue is fixed using Firefox 31.7.0 ESR build 2 and 38.0 ESR build 1 on Ubuntu 13.10 64-bit.