1442328 - Crash in MessageBuilder::WriteCacheResponse

Status: RESOLVED DUPLICATE of bug 1424505

(Core :: Disability Access APIs, defect, P1)

Description

[Marcia Knous [:marcia]]

This bug was filed from the Socorro interface and is
report bp-b252b361-1f88-497e-bd95-0615a0180228.
=============================================================

Seen while looking at beta crash data - crash signature which has been rising since 59b11: http://bit.ly/2oMeJ4f. Marking as security sensitive since some of the crash addresses look possibly security sensitive (some reports say medium). Crash reason for all is EXCEPTION_ACCESS_VIOLATION_EXEC. Not sure where to bucket this, so dropping in General for the moment.

Crashes are primarily Windows 7.

Strong correlation: (93.85% in signature vs 07.09% overall) Module "uiautomationcore.dll" = true

Top 10 frames of crashing thread:

0  @0x68084f8d 
1 uiautomationcore.dll MessageBuilder::WriteCacheResponse 
2 uiautomationcore.dll RemoteUiaNodeStub::Incoming_DrillForPointOrFocus 
3 uiautomationcore.dll RemoteUiaNodeStub::OnMessage 
4 uiautomationcore.dll InvokeOnCorrectContext2_Callback 
5 uiautomationcore.dll NullInvoker::CallTarget 
6 uiautomationcore.dll InvokeOnCorrectContext 
7 uiautomationcore.dll ProcessIncomingRequest 
8 uiautomationcore.dll HookBasedServerConnectionManager::HookCallback 
9 uiautomationcore.dll HandleHookMessage 

=============================================================

Comment 1

[[:philipp]]

looking a bit similar to 1412635...

Comment 2

[(No longer employed by Mozilla) Aaron Klotz]

This looks a lot like the stack that jimm just ni? me on...

Comment 3

[Daniel Veditz [:dveditz]]

(In reply to [:philipp] from comment #1)
> looking a bit similar to bug 1412635...

That bug was "fixed" but the crashes continued, so yeah could be.

Comment 4

[(No longer employed by Mozilla) Aaron Klotz]

Oh, this is interesting. 100% of those crashes are on Windows 7 32-bit. Could this be the 32-bit equivalent to bug 1424505?

Comment 5

[Jim Mathies [:jimm]]

(In reply to Aaron Klotz [:aklotz] from comment #4)
> Oh, this is interesting. 100% of those crashes are on Windows 7 32-bit.
> Could this be the 32-bit equivalent to bug 1424505?

Yep, sure looks like it.

https://crash-stats.mozilla.com/search/?signature=%3DMessageBuilder%3A%3AWriteCacheResponse&product=Firefox&date=%3E%3D2018-02-28T09%3A18%3A40.000Z&date=%3C2018-03-07T09%3A18%3A40.000Z&_sort=-date&_facets=signature&_facets=accessibility&_facets=accessibility_in_proc_client&_facets=accessibility_client&_columns=date&_columns=signature&_columns=product&_columns=version&_columns=build_id&_columns=platform#facet-accessibility_client

Comment 6

[Liz Henry (:lizzard)]

Keeping an eye on this for 59 even after the release.

Comment 7

[Ryan VanderMeulen (PTO, back July 27)]

(In reply to Jim Mathies [:jimm] from comment #5)
> (In reply to Aaron Klotz [:aklotz] from comment #4)
> > Oh, this is interesting. 100% of those crashes are on Windows 7 32-bit.
> > Could this be the 32-bit equivalent to bug 1424505?
> 
> Yep, sure looks like it.

The results from 59.0.2 would certainly seem to agree with that too. Can we open this bug up and/or dupe it over to bug 1424505?

Comment 8

[Ryan VanderMeulen (PTO, back July 27)]

It sure looks to me like the patches in bug 1424505 have helped with this bug too, but I still see reports from 60.0b16 which look like the stack in #c0, so I guess we're not completely out of the woods here?

Comment 9

[Ryan VanderMeulen (PTO, back July 27)]

No reports from Beta61 yet either. That said, there are some reports from Release 60 starting to come in too. I still think this is closely tied to bug 1424505, which still hits with very low frequency. Jamie, what are your thoughts about duping this bug over?

Comment 10

[James Teh [:Jamie]]

My concern about duping this bug is that despite how similar the circumstances look, this crash occurs in the main thread, whereas the bug 1424505 crash occurs on a background thread. That suggests a very different code path. Still, that could just be timing related; perhaps the RPC thread succeeds in 32 bit builds but then things fall apart when we return to the main thread. In the absence of further useful data, I guess duping this makes sense; we can always reopen it if that proves to be wrong.

Comment 12

[James Teh [:Jamie]]

I closed this as a duplicate as per comment 9 and comment 10. However, I'm unsure as to whether I can put this crash signature in bug 1424505, given that this one is marked as a security bug. Ryan, do you know?

Comment 13

[Ryan VanderMeulen (PTO, back July 27)]

I think I'd be inclined to just leave this signature on this bug. Al, WDYT?

Comment 14

[Al Billings [:abillings - ex-MoCo]]

I'd just leave it here.