Closed Bug 116311 Opened 24 years ago Closed 24 years ago

page-loader test crashes with new profile

Categories

(Core :: XPCOM, defect)

x86
Linux
defect
Not set
normal

Tracking

()

RESOLVED DUPLICATE of bug 117153

People

(Reporter: bstell, Assigned: scc)

References

()

Details

Attachments

(3 files)

when I create a new profile and run the page loader tests moz crashes. I suspect this is a cache issue since it does not seem to happen when I restart moz. I also believe I have seen this when I cleared cache.
any chance of a stack? What build is this?
Attached file purify FMR info
build 2001-12-20 FMR during display of http://www.mozilla.org/start
sorry I did not see see a core file
things seem to get really ill after this. Lots of error happen
Attached file purify log file (*.pv)
->cache
Assignee: asa → gordon
Component: Browser-General → Networking: Cache
QA Contact: doronr → tever
I see no evidence connecting this bug with the cache. However, the free memory read data should be looked into.
Assignee: gordon → asa
Component: Networking: Cache → Browser-General
QA Contact: tever → doronr
Does talkback (in a nightly build) catch this crash?
To answer Asa's question: it probably does show up in a talkback log, but the stack in that case wouldn't mean much, since it is just a victim of the corruption. Thanks to bstell for getting those Solaris purify logs. This is the crash that has been happening since Nov 27 IIRC in the pageloader tests on btek. It does seem to only happen on the initial, clean cache run of the test, which doesn't necessarily make it the cache, but the different code path would appear to expose this corruption. Coincidentally, dbaron modified nsSharedBufferHandle on Nov 27, which is implicated in the second set of purify logs attached.
*** Bug 114281 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
It would be more likely to be the modifications I made that caused string sharing to be used in a few places. Could this be bug 112547? Or is it something simpler?
->String
Assignee: asa → scc
Component: Browser-General → String
QA Contact: doronr → jaggernaut
scc is on sabbatical -- who can help? jag? dbaron? /be
The stack traces that are in bug 114281 are exactly like the ones that I'm seeing on my machine at home. I'm not just seeing it in the page load tests, either. I'm seeing it in mail, mostly since that's what I use most of the time. I have a dual CPU machine which may make things worse. What is btek? There's a possibility that this isn't strings, it's just that this shows up with strings since there's where most of our allocation happens and is first to stumble over the bug. It would be really great if we could find a way to reproduce this easily.
btek is a dual-CPU machine, too.
My machine is also dual-CPU, and I don't see it.
dbaron, what compiler and linux install (assuming you're using linux?)
I'm starting to think that the PAC bug that I filed (bug 116311) is the same as this. I know that one of the problems with the PAC patch is that when it's loaded it loads the plugin host, the RDF code and some charset code from a non-main thread. This causes all kinds of assertions. I've added thread safety to those classes that were asserting about being called from the wrong thread but this is just spackling over the real problem.
http://bonsai.mozilla.org/cvsquery.cgi?treeid=default&module=all&branch=HEAD&branchtype=match&dir=&file=mozilla%2F&filetype=match&who=&whotype=match&sortby=Date&hours=2&date=explicit&mindate=11%2F25%2F2001+19%3A00%3A00&maxdate=11%2F28%2F2001+09%3A00%3A00&cvsroot=%2Fcvsroot This bug appeared somewhere in this set of checkins. dbaron, there are shared string changes in there. I had to binary search for the bad build. Now I have to binary search the checkins. Weeeee!!!
> dbaron, what compiler and linux install (assuming you're using linux?) gcc 3.0.2 with -O2 and RH 7.2
Sorry, the PAC bug is bug 117153. I've got that crash down to a single checkin by dbaron. I'll bet this bug is the same. The PAC bug is relatively easy to reproduce, which is nice.
Hopefully this is fixed now, although it hasn't shown up as a problem on tinderbox for at least a day or so anyway.
I'm going to dupe this since what I fixed matches bstell's purify log exactly *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 117153 ***
Status: NEW → RESOLVED
Closed: 24 years ago
Resolution: --- → DUPLICATE
Component: String → XPCOM
You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.

Attachment

General

Created:
Updated:
Size: