Closed
Bug 1469657
Opened 6 years ago
Closed 6 years ago
Whitelist Extensis UTC fonts on 10.11 and Earlier
Categories
(Core :: Security: Process Sandboxing, defect)
Tracking
()
RESOLVED
FIXED
mozilla63
Tracking | Status | |
---|---|---|
firefox-esr52 | --- | unaffected |
firefox-esr60 | --- | fixed |
firefox61 | --- | wontfix |
firefox62 | --- | fixed |
firefox63 | --- | fixed |
People
(Reporter: haik, Assigned: haik)
References
Details
(Keywords: regression)
Attachments
(2 files)
165.98 KB,
text/plain
|
Details | |
59 bytes,
text/x-review-board-request
|
Alex_Gaynor
:
review+
lizzard
:
approval-mozilla-beta+
RyanVM
:
approval-mozilla-esr60+
|
Details |
On bug 1460917 comment 45 Yannik reported a problem with fonts caused by the Extensis UTC product storing fonts in ~/Library/Extensis/UTC which isn't covered by the whitelisting used for 10.11 and earlier for font directories. We should whitelist that directory as well until we have a fix for 1469063.
Assignee | ||
Comment 1•6 years ago
|
||
@Yannik, would you be interested in testing a build of Firefox Nightly with this fix on 10.11 where you are experiencing the problem? If so, the first link below contains a build of Nightly with the fix. If not, no problem. Thanks! Nightly build (use right-click -> Open): https://queue.taskcluster.net/v1/task/bx7VtGYbSQGE9R6mM4pJPQ/runs/0/artifacts/public/build/target.dmg To see the source code changes: https://treeherder.mozilla.org/#/jobs?repo=try&revision=f53b8d225264bf6eeb06fe5ced0d14a28e38abd1
Flags: needinfo?(yannik.pier)
Hi Halk, just tested the nightly build and it's working for my configuration! ;-) But UTC in default configuration is still showing this issue. The problem is that UTC has two different font vaults, depending on the configuration: /Library/Extensis/ - (default) does not work ~/Library/Extensis/ - works now I've attached you the Font list
Flags: needinfo?(yannik.pier)
Assignee | ||
Updated•6 years ago
|
Assignee: nobody → haftandilian
Assignee | ||
Comment 3•6 years ago
|
||
(In reply to yannik.pier from comment #2) > The problem is that UTC has two different font vaults, depending on the > configuration: > /Library/Extensis/ - (default) does not work > ~/Library/Extensis/ - works now > > I've attached you the Font list Thanks. Here's a build that includes /Library/Extensis/UTC as well. Could you confirm it works with both configurations on your end? https://queue.taskcluster.net/v1/task/eaQTEkRQRravHGGsNakf2g/runs/0/artifacts/public/build/target.dmg
Flags: needinfo?(yannik.pier)
Hi Halk, thanks for the new build! I can confirm that both configurations are working now. Looking forward to see it in a release version ;) Have a great day!
Flags: needinfo?(yannik.pier)
Comment hidden (mozreview-request) |
Comment 6•6 years ago
|
||
mozreview-review |
Comment on attachment 8987617 [details] Bug 1469657 - Whitelist Extensis UTC fonts on 10.11 and Earlier https://reviewboard.mozilla.org/r/252838/#review259360
Attachment #8987617 -
Flags: review?(agaynor) → review+
Pushed by haftandilian@mozilla.com: https://hg.mozilla.org/integration/autoland/rev/05c7d22cb63a Whitelist Extensis UTC fonts on 10.11 and Earlier r=Alex_Gaynor
Comment 8•6 years ago
|
||
bugherder |
https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/05c7d22cb63a
Status: NEW → RESOLVED
Closed: 6 years ago
status-firefox63:
--- → fixed
Resolution: --- → FIXED
Target Milestone: --- → mozilla63
Comment 9•6 years ago
|
||
Haik, is this something you think is safe/not risky to uplift to beta 62?
Flags: needinfo?(haftandilian)
Assignee | ||
Comment 10•6 years ago
|
||
(In reply to Liz Henry (:lizzard) (needinfo? me) from comment #9) > Haik, is this something you think is safe/not risky to uplift to beta 62? It's definitely safe for uplift to beta 62. Will add the uplift flags. Thanks for pointing this out.
Flags: needinfo?(haftandilian)
Assignee | ||
Comment 11•6 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 8987617 [details] Bug 1469657 - Whitelist Extensis UTC fonts on 10.11 and Earlier Approval Request Comment [Feature/Bug causing the regression]: Bug 1332190 that enabled read access restrictions for the Mac content sandbox. [User impact if declined]: Users using the Extensis Universal Type Server product to manage their fonts running on OSX 10.11 and earlier may experience font-display issues where fonts are unreadable. The fonts are displayed with the Mac fallback font where each character looks like a box. [Is this code covered by automated tests?]: No [Has the fix been verified in Nightly?]: Yes, but the user experiencing the problem. [Needs manual test from QE? If yes, steps to reproduce]: No [List of other uplifts needed for the feature/fix]: No [Is the change risky?]: No [Why is the change risky/not risky?]: It makes the Mac content sandbox slightly less permissive by allowing access to two additional paths on OS X 10.11 and earlier that may contain fonts. The change is small and doesn't include any C++ or complicated code. [String changes made/needed]: None
Attachment #8987617 -
Flags: approval-mozilla-beta?
Updated•6 years ago
|
Keywords: regression
Comment 12•6 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 8987617 [details] Bug 1469657 - Whitelist Extensis UTC fonts on 10.11 and Earlier Extra fix for a fairly old regression that was partly fixed in 60. Adding to the whitelist sounds OK to me. Should be in 62 beta 5.
Attachment #8987617 -
Flags: approval-mozilla-beta? → approval-mozilla-beta+
Updated•6 years ago
|
status-firefox61:
--- → fix-optional
Updated•6 years ago
|
status-firefox-esr52:
--- → unaffected
status-firefox-esr60:
--- → fix-optional
Comment 13•6 years ago
|
||
bugherder uplift |
https://hg.mozilla.org/releases/mozilla-beta/rev/f0c51d4ad04b
Comment 14•6 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 8987617 [details] Bug 1469657 - Whitelist Extensis UTC fonts on 10.11 and Earlier We should take this for ESR 60.2 for completeness' sake.
Attachment #8987617 -
Flags: approval-mozilla-esr60+
Comment 15•6 years ago
|
||
bugherder uplift |
https://hg.mozilla.org/releases/mozilla-esr60/rev/bb527c36fe12
Updated•6 years ago
|
You need to log in
before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description
•