Closed
Bug 1251150
Opened 9 years ago
Closed 6 years ago
top crash in DecrementVisibleCount
Categories
(Core :: Layout: Images, Video, and HTML Frames, defect)
Tracking
()
People
(Reporter: ting, Assigned: tnikkel)
Details
(Keywords: crash)
Crash Data
Attachments
(5 files)
4.86 KB,
patch
|
dholbert
:
review+
ritu
:
approval-mozilla-aurora+
|
Details | Diff | Splinter Review |
7.17 KB,
patch
|
MatsPalmgren_bugz
:
review+
ritu
:
approval-mozilla-aurora+
|
Details | Diff | Splinter Review |
8.38 KB,
patch
|
MatsPalmgren_bugz
:
review+
ritu
:
approval-mozilla-aurora+
|
Details | Diff | Splinter Review |
7.72 KB,
patch
|
Details | Diff | Splinter Review | |
11.79 KB,
patch
|
ritu
:
approval-mozilla-aurora+
|
Details | Diff | Splinter Review |
This bug was filed from the Socorro interface and is
report bp-1d890811-8a45-4174-a1c5-a26542160218.
=============================================================
This is the #28 top crash for e10s and doesn't show up in non-e10s.
Comment 1•9 years ago
|
||
Timothy, this is in UpdateImageVisibility code which you seem to have worked on -- any chance you could diagnose this and/or come up with some diagnostics we could add to test theories about how/why we might be crashing here?
The crash is a null deref in DecrementVisibleCount, at this line:
> iter.Get()->GetKey()->DecrementVisibleCount(aNonvisibleAction);
Here, 'iter' is traversing a nsTHashtable<nsRefPtrHashKey<nsIImageLoadingContent>>, which holds the swapped contents of mVisibleImages.
I think the fact that we null-crash here implies that we somehow ended up with a null pointer inside of that hash table...
But, I don't immediately see how that happens, because every insertion seems to either null-check the inserted thing, or do something else right around the insertion that would make us crash earlier if we were inserting a null pointer.
Component: Layout → Layout: Images
Flags: needinfo?(tnikkel)
Updated•9 years ago
|
Summary: crash in DecrementVisibleCount → top crash in DecrementVisibleCount
Comment 2•9 years ago
|
||
(In reply to Ting-Yu Chou [:ting] from comment #0)
> This is the #28 top crash for e10s and doesn't show up in non-e10s.
I take it by "doesn't show up" you mean it's not a *topcrash* for non-e10s, right?
Because I *do* see some crashes with this signature that seem likely to be non-e10s, e.g. this one in Firefox 43.0.4: bp-0dc7387d-d13f-4369-9257-90f262160130
...and this one on Firefox 44:
bp-c1565ae8-2b60-4617-8e19-c34b02160130
(I'm not 100% sure how to tell, but I'm assuming that these crash reports are from non-e10s builds, since they're on release channel.)
Updated•9 years ago
|
Flags: needinfo?(janus926)
Reporter | ||
Comment 3•9 years ago
|
||
(In reply to Daniel Holbert [:dholbert] from comment #2)
> (In reply to Ting-Yu Chou [:ting] from comment #0)
> > This is the #28 top crash for e10s and doesn't show up in non-e10s.
>
> I take it by "doesn't show up" you mean it's not a *topcrash* for non-e10s,
> right?
>
I am sorry, you're right. If you don't mind, could you tell me how did you find the same crashes, I am still new to crash-stats.
I looked around, and found there's a "Product" in "Summary" which list the versions, is this where you found the other crashes for non-e10s? Thanks.
Flags: needinfo?(janus926)
Comment 4•9 years ago
|
||
(In reply to Ting-Yu Chou [:ting] from comment #3)
> I am sorry, you're right. If you don't mind, could you tell me how did you
> find the same crashes, I am still new to crash-stats.
I clicked "More Reports", near the top of your crash report linked in comment 0, on the "Signature" row. Then I clicked the "Reports" tab. This brings up a table showing a bunch of recent crash reports with this signature, & their version numbers.
Comment 5•9 years ago
|
||
One more note: when we crash, we're iterating over a nsTHashtable "oldVisibleImages" that we've *just* populated via a call to SwapElements:
> 5643 // Remove the entries of the mVisibleImages hashtable and put them in
> 5644 // oldVisibleImages.
> 5645 nsTHashtable< nsRefPtrHashKey<nsIImageLoadingContent> > oldVisibleImages;
> 5646 mVisibleImages.SwapElements(oldVisibleImages);
http://mxr.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/source/layout/base/nsPresShell.cpp?rev=c8be68703225#5645
Note that the nsTHashtable::SwapElements method was only added last year, for this specific call site, in bug 1120198.
It seems possible that nsTHashtable::SwapElements might do the wrong thing in some edge case, and that's involved here... (e.g. maybe due to some weirdness in PLDHashtable's move copy-constructor, or one of its member vars' copy constructors methods...)
Comment 6•9 years ago
|
||
Also: multiple crash reports mention flash, and 2 mention that the user manually killed plugin-container (e.g. bp-096bdf89-3952-4fb3-9d85-4cded2160202) for flash, and that this crash happened right after that.
Reporter | ||
Comment 7•9 years ago
|
||
I'll look into nsTHashtable::SwapElements().
Assignee: nobody → janus926
Reporter | ||
Comment 8•9 years ago
|
||
Checked PLDHashTable(PLDHashTable&&) and PLDHashTable::operator=(PLDHashTable&&), but I didn't see anything suspicious, the member vars of PLDHashTable are primitives.
Updated•9 years ago
|
Blocks: e10s-crashes
Reporter | ||
Comment 9•9 years ago
|
||
It is GetKey() returning 0x0 from disassembly:
iter.Get()->GetKey()->DecrementVisibleCount(aNonvisibleAction);
nsRefPtrHashKey does not have an interface to change |mKey|, also nsPreshShell does not call mVisibleImages.PutEntry() with a null pointer. Not sure how could |mKey| be 0.
Reporter | ||
Comment 10•9 years ago
|
||
I've traced following functions, but still didn't see anything could alter nsRefPtrHashKey.mKey:
PLDHashTable::Clear(),
PLDHashTable::Add(),
PLDHashTable::RemoveEntry()
Also tried to reproduce the issue locally by visiting:
www.cracked.com,
www.foxnews.com,
zyngagames.com/play/farmville-two
but no luck yet.
Furthermore, there are few crashes not accessing 0x0 but some other addresses, it could be actually a memory corruption.
Assignee | ||
Comment 11•9 years ago
|
||
The only thought I have is maybe we are in a bad state before this and only crashing here.
So how do we detect that? We can start by checking if the presshell is in a good state. Things we can check: mIsZombie, mIsDestroying, mIsReflowing, mPaintingIsFrozen, mFrozen, mForwardingContainer, mIsNeverPainting, mHaveShutDown, mIsDocumentGone, nsContentUtils::IsSafeToRunScript(). We can use gfxCriticalNote to annotate the crash report just before we crash.
How long will we have to long diagnostic code in before we get results? Is nightly enough?
Assignee | ||
Comment 12•9 years ago
|
||
Attachment #8728793 -
Flags: review?(dholbert)
Updated•9 years ago
|
Attachment #8728793 -
Flags: review?(dholbert) → review+
Comment 13•9 years ago
|
||
Reporter | ||
Updated•9 years ago
|
Keywords: leave-open
Are you confident that nothing can mutate mVisibleImages during enumeration of it, e.g., inside of ClearVisibleImagesList or PresShell::UpdateImageLockingState. Though it's not clear to me how that could lead to corruption of mVisibleImages that doesn't show up until a later enumeration.
Reporter | ||
Comment 15•9 years ago
|
||
From minidumps:
b2662f4a-a670-4930-b7ca-f6b7c2160310,
1d890811-8a45-4174-a1c5-a26542160218
mVisiblieImages.mTable.mOps has something interesting:
hashKey = nsTHashtable<nsPtrHashKey<mozilla::embedding::PPrintSettingsDialogParent>>::s_HashKey
matchEntry = nsTHashtable<nsPtrHashKey<mozilla::FrameLayerBuildier::DisplayItemData>>::s_MatchEntry
moveEntry = 0x0
clearEntry = 0x0
initEntry = 0x0
Wonder if there's anything related to this comment:
https://dxr.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/source/xpcom/glue/nsTHashtable.h#355-358
Reporter | ||
Comment 16•9 years ago
|
||
(In reply to Ting-Yu Chou [:ting] from comment #15)
> From minidumps:
>
> b2662f4a-a670-4930-b7ca-f6b7c2160310,
> 1d890811-8a45-4174-a1c5-a26542160218
Correction: it's from the latter one, the former one has different hashKey and matchEntry but also has 0x0 for moveEntry, clearEntry and initEntry.
Assignee | ||
Comment 17•9 years ago
|
||
(In reply to David Baron [:dbaron] ⌚️UTC+8 from comment #14)
> Are you confident that nothing can mutate mVisibleImages during enumeration
> of it, e.g., inside of ClearVisibleImagesList or
> PresShell::UpdateImageLockingState. Though it's not clear to me how that
> could lead to corruption of mVisibleImages that doesn't show up until a
> later enumeration.
Good find. I was thinking that because RebuildImageVisibility iterates over a copy of the hashtable we'd be safe from that.
I went through everything that can happen via ClearVisibleImagesList and UpdateImageLockingState with a fine tooth comb. The only possibility I found is discarding an image sends a image notification observer notification. I can only find test code that observes the discard notification in our tree.
I'll wait until we get a crash with the new annotations (should take < 1 week based on the current crashes). Then I'll try making Discard send notifications async and/or making a copy of the hashtable to iterate over.
Reporter | ||
Comment 18•9 years ago
|
||
(In reply to Ting-Yu Chou [:ting] from comment #15)
> mVisiblieImages.mTable.mOps has something interesting:
>
> initEntry = 0x0
When it's null, PLDHashTable::Add() skips initializing mKey, but still has mKeyHash set.
https://dxr.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/source/xpcom/glue/PLDHashTable.cpp#581-584
Comment 19•9 years ago
|
||
bugherder |
Assignee | ||
Comment 20•9 years ago
|
||
First crash in a build with the annotations
https://crash-stats.mozilla.com/report/index/0c494a56-eec1-445b-a48f-f8c5d2160314
I don't see any gfxCriticalNote's anywhere, but I've never seen them in a crash report before so I'm not sure if I'm looking in the right places.
Comment 21•9 years ago
|
||
IIRC, they show up in "App Notes". I don't see any of your messages in the raw dump
either so I think none of the conditions you tested were true.
> Then I'll try making Discard send notifications async and/or
> making a copy of the hashtable to iterate over.
It would be nice to know how this can happen before that.
Perhaps it would be worth to check for some kind of reentrancy?
e.g. in ClearVisibleImagesList, set a flag on the shell before the call to
DecrementVisibleCount and clear it afterwards. Then add something like this:
if (mTheNewFlag)
gfxCriticalNote << "mVisibleImages is busy! " << __FILE__ << ":" << __LINE__;
at the start of every method that can possibly change mVisibleImages.
Also, just in case, we should probably spray all nsPresShell methods with:
MOZ_ASSERT(NS_IsMainThread());
Assignee | ||
Comment 22•9 years ago
|
||
(In reply to Mats Palmgren (:mats) from comment #21)
> IIRC, they show up in "App Notes". I don't see any of your messages in the
> raw dump
> either so I think none of the conditions you tested were true.
Thanks.
> > Then I'll try making Discard send notifications async and/or
> > making a copy of the hashtable to iterate over.
>
> It would be nice to know how this can happen before that.
> Perhaps it would be worth to check for some kind of reentrancy?
> e.g. in ClearVisibleImagesList, set a flag on the shell before the call to
> DecrementVisibleCount and clear it afterwards. Then add something like this:
>
> if (mTheNewFlag)
> gfxCriticalNote << "mVisibleImages is busy! " << __FILE__ << ":" <<
> __LINE__;
>
> at the start of every method that can possibly change mVisibleImages.
Yeah, I agree. I'll write something like that.
Assignee | ||
Comment 23•9 years ago
|
||
This will confirm if we are re-entering via discard. And give us a little information on how.
Attachment #8730443 -
Flags: review?(mats)
Comment 24•9 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 8730443 [details] [diff] [review]
add crash annotations for re-entrancy
LGTM. Perhaps add "<< GetCurrentThreadId()" too if that's printable
on all platforms?
Attachment #8730443 -
Flags: review?(mats) → review+
Comment 25•9 years ago
|
||
Assignee | ||
Comment 26•9 years ago
|
||
I couldn't see anything anywhere near layout that used GetCurrentThreadId() so I didn't want to pull in some headers. I just used NS_IsMainThread and used that to record on of off main thread in the note.
Comment 27•9 years ago
|
||
bugherder |
Assignee | ||
Comment 28•9 years ago
|
||
No crashes with the new annotations yet but while browsing I found two interesting crashes
https://crash-stats.mozilla.com/report/index/e2913662-1186-471f-93b6-c78732160318
https://crash-stats.mozilla.com/report/index/45a035f2-d070-458e-be38-0b2972160318
Look like probably from the same users, and startup crashes. The stacks seem reasonable and both go from nsXULWindow::ShowModal() and then into NS_ProcessNextEvent(), and that processes something which leads to image visibility. The crash addresses are not near null and the crash reason is EXCEPTION_PRIV_INSTRUCTION, so seems like it's a different way to crash here.
![]() |
||
Comment 29•9 years ago
|
||
This isn't an e10s specific crash -
https://crash-stats.mozilla.com/search/?product=Firefox&signature=~DecrementVisibleCount&dom_ipc_enabled=__null__&_facets=signature&_columns=date&_columns=signature&_columns=product&_columns=version&_columns=build_id&_columns=platform#facet-signature
it most happens in non-e10s.
No longer blocks: e10s-crashes
![]() |
||
Updated•9 years ago
|
Reporter | ||
Comment 30•9 years ago
|
||
Unassign myself because it is not e10s specific crash.
Assignee: janus926 → nobody
Assignee | ||
Comment 31•9 years ago
|
||
No crashes on nightly in over a week now, might have to uplift to aurora to get info.
Comment 32•9 years ago
|
||
Sounds like a good idea to me.
Assignee | ||
Comment 33•9 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 8728793 [details] [diff] [review]
add annotations
We are trying to diagnose this crash by adding crash annotations, but the frequency isn't high enough on nightly, so we want more coverage with aurora.
Approval Request Comment
[Feature/regressing bug #]: none
[User impact if declined]: none
[Describe test coverage new/current, TreeHerder]: none
[Risks and why]: none, only adds crash annotations
[String/UUID change made/needed]: none
Attachment #8728793 -
Flags: approval-mozilla-aurora?
Assignee | ||
Comment 34•9 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 8730443 [details] [diff] [review]
add crash annotations for re-entrancy
We are trying to diagnose this crash by adding crash annotations, but the frequency isn't high enough on nightly, so we want more coverage with aurora.
Approval Request Comment
[Feature/regressing bug #]: none
[User impact if declined]: none
[Describe test coverage new/current, TreeHerder]: none
[Risks and why]: none, only adds crash annotations
[String/UUID change made/needed]: none
Attachment #8730443 -
Flags: approval-mozilla-aurora?
Assignee | ||
Updated•9 years ago
|
QA Contact: tnikkel
Assignee | ||
Updated•9 years ago
|
Assignee: nobody → tnikkel
QA Contact: tnikkel
Assignee | ||
Comment 35•9 years ago
|
||
Finally a crash in a build with our annotations
https://crash-stats.mozilla.com/report/index/c494c575-f13d-49d7-a880-c9d6e2160324
Nothing in the app notes.
The current re-entrance checks only catch if we re-enter via a call to DecrementVisibleCount. I'll try to craft a patch that catches any kind of re-entrance.
Comment on attachment 8730443 [details] [diff] [review]
add crash annotations for re-entrancy
Patch for improving crash diagnostic information, Aurora47+
Attachment #8730443 -
Flags: approval-mozilla-aurora? → approval-mozilla-aurora+
Comment 37•9 years ago
|
||
bugherder uplift |
https://hg.mozilla.org/releases/mozilla-aurora/rev/2d1dca51243a
https://hg.mozilla.org/releases/mozilla-aurora/rev/6fb4fbd3b8fe
status-firefox47:
--- → fixed
Updated•9 years ago
|
status-firefox48:
--- → affected
Assignee | ||
Comment 38•9 years ago
|
||
I wanted to check to make sure the notes would show up in a crash report, so I made try build with this crash report
https://crash-stats.mozilla.com/report/index/2ed9082e-8d1d-40f3-bc83-aa26a2160327
I found that you have to click the metadata tab, and there is a field specifically for gfx critical errors. The error did not show up in the raw dump.
Attachment #8728793 -
Flags: approval-mozilla-aurora? → approval-mozilla-aurora+
Assignee | ||
Comment 39•9 years ago
|
||
Attachment #8735721 -
Flags: review?(mats)
Assignee | ||
Comment 40•9 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 8735721 [details] [diff] [review]
crash annotations for re-entrancy from somewhere besides DecrementVisibleCount
I fixed clearing the bool for the early returns in DoUpdateApproximateFrameVisibility in my local version of the patch.
Comment 41•9 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 8735721 [details] [diff] [review]
crash annotations for re-entrancy from somewhere besides DecrementVisibleCount
r=mats
Can we also add an annotation + setting flags in
RebuildApproximateFrameVisibilityDisplayList ?
It's (only) called from nsSubDocumentFrame on its subdoc shell:
http://mxr.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/source/layout/generic/nsSubDocumentFrame.cpp#576
It seems bad if mInFrameVisibilityUpdate is true already in that
shell for that call.
Attachment #8735721 -
Flags: review?(mats) → review+
Assignee | ||
Comment 42•9 years ago
|
||
(In reply to Mats Palmgren (:mats) from comment #41)
> Comment on attachment 8735721 [details] [diff] [review]
> crash annotations for re-entrancy from somewhere besides
> DecrementVisibleCount
>
> r=mats
>
> Can we also add an annotation + setting flags in
> RebuildApproximateFrameVisibilityDisplayList ?
>
> It's (only) called from nsSubDocumentFrame on its subdoc shell:
> http://mxr.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/source/layout/generic/
> nsSubDocumentFrame.cpp#576
>
> It seems bad if mInFrameVisibilityUpdate is true already in that
> shell for that call.
It would be bad, but the display list image visibility code should be completely inactive. The line you link to, for example, only happens if |aBuilder->IsForFrameVisibility()|, which is when the display list builder was created with mode |FRAME_VISIBILITY|, which is only done here
http://mxr.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/source/layout/base/nsPresShell.cpp#5959
which is inside an ifdef that is not true. (The reason it is in the tree is to be able to use it to compare to the frame tree walker code to make sure it match the display list results.)
Comment 43•9 years ago
|
||
Updated•9 years ago
|
Updated•9 years ago
|
Comment 44•9 years ago
|
||
bugherder |
Assignee | ||
Comment 45•9 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 8735721 [details] [diff] [review]
crash annotations for re-entrancy from somewhere besides DecrementVisibleCount
Crash volume still low on nightly (name of crashing function changed, I'm searching both old and new, and searching for the notes we are adding to reports in all signatures).
Request uplift to aurora because not enough crash volume to see crashes of this on nightly.
Approval Request Comment
[Feature/regressing bug #]: none
[User impact if declined]: none
[Describe test coverage new/current, TreeHerder]: none
[Risks and why]: none, only adds crash annotations
[String/UUID change made/needed]: none
Attachment #8735721 -
Flags: approval-mozilla-aurora?
Comment on attachment 8735721 [details] [diff] [review]
crash annotations for re-entrancy from somewhere besides DecrementVisibleCount
Needed to better diagnose crashes, Aurora47+
Attachment #8735721 -
Flags: approval-mozilla-aurora? → approval-mozilla-aurora+
Comment 47•9 years ago
|
||
Needs rebasing for Aurora.
Assignee | ||
Comment 48•9 years ago
|
||
Flags: needinfo?(ryanvm)
Updated•9 years ago
|
Flags: needinfo?(ryanvm) → needinfo?(wkocher)
Comment 49•9 years ago
|
||
bugherder uplift |
Flags: needinfo?(wkocher)
Assignee | ||
Comment 50•9 years ago
|
||
Two crashes in builds with the latest annotations
https://crash-stats.mozilla.com/report/index/ab6ab05e-c7b2-48ec-930b-db1182160408
https://crash-stats.mozilla.com/report/index/e69f2492-149a-45d9-832a-b54a72160408
no graphics critical notes in these. I also search every crash report for the landed graphics critical notes and find no hits. But I think this search might not work as it does not find my test crash from comment 38.
So I think the only lead we have left is that the image visibility function may be called off main thread?
Comment 51•9 years ago
|
||
Yeah, unless we missed something else. :-)
Perhaps we should just add MOZ_RELEASE_ASSERT(NS_IsMainThread()) in all
pres shell methods?
Maybe we should also wallpaper the problem by adding a local hashtable and do
a SwapElements in PresShell::ClearVisibleImagesList?
That's the only place where we pass mVisibleImages directly to DecrementVisibleCount
AFAICT. If we don't see any crashes at all after that then we know we missed
something in our analysis. And if so, we probably want to start from scratch anyway
since the code has changed significantly on trunk.
Comment 52•9 years ago
|
||
Fwiw, looking at the crash incidents from comment 50, it appears these installations have
a large number of plugins. Most are click-to-play of course, and it may be an unrelated
coincidence.
Also, looking at the URLs, I see a large number of these:
wyciwyg://725/https://zynga2-a.akamaihd.net/zap/zac/1/lib/xd_injection_frame.html#...
which looks strange. I have no clue what that thing is.
(The initial number after // and the part after the # (a different number) varies.)
Assignee | ||
Comment 53•9 years ago
|
||
First crash since the big changes on nightly
https://crash-stats.mozilla.com/report/index/7aaa446b-90c3-4cd8-bdff-02a442160413
We're accessing an nsIFrame now, the hashtable no longer holds a reference obviously, but nsFrame::DestroyFrom removes the frame from the hashtable. The crash address is no longer null, it's the seemingly valid 0x106172c3c8. Not poison, but the memory at that location could be poison, but in this case seems like it's not a valid address we can access.
(In reply to Mats Palmgren (:mats) from comment #52)
> Also, looking at the URLs, I see a large number of these:
> wyciwyg://725/https://zynga2-a.akamaihd.net/zap/zac/1/lib/xd_injection_frame.
> html#...
> which looks strange. I have no clue what that thing is.
> (The initial number after // and the part after the # (a different number)
> varies.)
Interesting. wyciwyg = what you cache is what you get, sounds like it is used to cache documents created via document.write().
Comment 54•9 years ago
|
||
Yeah, that crash looks ... worrying. Given that destroyed frames are retained in the arena
it means its shell is deleted, otherwise we wouldn't crash on that line.
Comment 55•9 years ago
|
||
Boris, do you know what these strange URLs come from:
wyciwyg://725/https://zynga2-a.akamaihd.net/zap/zac/1/lib/xd_injection_frame.html#...
and under what circumstances they would turn up as the URL
in crash data? (just want to know if they give some clue
about what we're doing when the crash occurs)
Flags: needinfo?(bzbarsky)
Assignee | ||
Comment 56•9 years ago
|
||
(In reply to Mats Palmgren (:mats) from comment #54)
> Yeah, that crash looks ... worrying. Given that destroyed frames are
> retained in the arena
> it means its shell is deleted, otherwise we wouldn't crash on that line.
When a shell is destroyed it clears it's list of images and revokes the image visibility event. So the only way this could happen is if a frame gets put into the hashtable of the wrong presshell.
![]() |
||
Comment 57•9 years ago
|
||
> Boris, do you know what these strange URLs come from:
Sure. They come from documents created via document.open()/document.write()/document.close(). The part after "wyciwyg://NNNN/" indicates what the document URI was before it was blown away via open(). The NNNN is just a global counter.
Flags: needinfo?(bzbarsky)
Assignee | ||
Comment 58•9 years ago
|
||
These crash annotations won't be providing any more benefit, time to back them out. Aurora first cause it needs approval.
Approval Request Comment
[Feature/regressing bug #]: no regression
[User impact if declined]: none
[Describe test coverage new/current, TreeHerder]: none
[Risks and why]: none
[String/UUID change made/needed]: none
These are crash annotations that we added to try to diagnose a crash. They can't provide anymore info, let's remove them.
Attachment #8743561 -
Flags: approval-mozilla-aurora?
Comment on attachment 8743561 [details] [diff] [review]
backout the annotations from aurora
Backing out annotations that are not needed anymore, Aurora47+
Attachment #8743561 -
Flags: approval-mozilla-aurora? → approval-mozilla-aurora+
Hi Wes, Carsten, we are using the same bug for backout. Just thought I'd ni you guys as I wasn't sure how to set the status-fx47 flag.
Flags: needinfo?(wkocher)
Flags: needinfo?(cbook)
Comment 61•9 years ago
|
||
bugherder uplift |
Flags: needinfo?(wkocher)
Flags: needinfo?(cbook)
Comment 62•9 years ago
|
||
Comment 63•9 years ago
|
||
bugherder |
Comment 64•9 years ago
|
||
Crash volume for signature 'DecrementVisibleCount':
- nightly (version 50): 0 crashes from 2016-06-06.
- aurora (version 49): 0 crashes from 2016-06-07.
- beta (version 48): 0 crashes from 2016-06-06.
- release (version 47): 1430 crashes from 2016-05-31.
- esr (version 45): 277 crashes from 2016-04-07.
Crash volume on the last weeks:
W. N-1 W. N-2 W. N-3 W. N-4 W. N-5 W. N-6 W. N-7
- nightly 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
- aurora 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
- beta 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
- release 173 183 182 180 185 204 216
- esr 37 21 17 22 24 32 23
Affected platforms: Windows, Linux
status-firefox-esr45:
--- → affected
Updated•7 years ago
|
Product: Core → Core Graveyard
Updated•7 years ago
|
Product: Core Graveyard → Core
Comment 65•6 years ago
|
||
Closing because no crashes reported for 12 weeks.
Status: NEW → RESOLVED
Closed: 6 years ago
Resolution: --- → WONTFIX
Updated•6 years ago
|
Keywords: leave-open
Updated•3 years ago
|
Flags: needinfo?(tnikkel)
You need to log in
before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description
•