heap-use-after-free in [@ mozilla::a11y::DocAccessibleChildBase::ActorDestroy]
Categories
(Core :: Disability Access APIs, defect)
Tracking
()
People
(Reporter: tsmith, Assigned: eeejay)
References
(Blocks 1 open bug)
Details
(4 keywords, Whiteboard: [adv-main66+])
Attachments
(4 files)
1.04 KB,
text/html
|
Details | |
466.00 KB,
text/html
|
Details | |
47 bytes,
text/x-phabricator-request
|
abillings
:
sec-approval+
|
Details | Review |
3.65 KB,
patch
|
lizzard
:
approval-mozilla-beta+
|
Details | Diff | Splinter Review |
Reporter | ||
Comment 1•6 years ago
|
||
Reporter | ||
Updated•6 years ago
|
Reporter | ||
Comment 2•6 years ago
|
||
Reporter | ||
Comment 3•6 years ago
|
||
Assignee | ||
Comment 4•6 years ago
|
||
Assignee | ||
Comment 5•6 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 9045482 [details]
Bug 1512567 - Check that we didn't already create an IPCDoc for the DocAccessible. r?Jamie!
Security Approval Request
How easily could an exploit be constructed based on the patch?
It would be hard. I had a very hard time reproducing this. Had to repeat the steps numerous times.
Do comments in the patch, the check-in comment, or tests included in the patch paint a bulls-eye on the security problem?
No
Which older supported branches are affected by this flaw?
beta, release
If not all supported branches, which bug introduced the flaw?
None
Do you have backports for the affected branches?
No
If not, how different, hard to create, and risky will they be?
I think this patch will apply to all branches.
How likely is this patch to cause regressions; how much testing does it need?
I think it needs a moderate amount of time in nightly before uplifting.
Comment 6•6 years ago
|
||
This doesn't affect ESR60?
sec-approval+ for trunk. We'll want a beta patch nominated after bake time.
Updated•6 years ago
|
Assignee | ||
Comment 7•6 years ago
|
||
(In reply to Al Billings [:abillings] from comment #6)
This doesn't affect ESR60?
According to bug 1518960, I think this surfaced in 65. I can test with ESR.
sec-approval+ for trunk. We'll want a beta patch nominated after bake time.
Assignee | ||
Comment 10•6 years ago
|
||
Comment 11•6 years ago
|
||
![]() |
||
Comment 12•6 years ago
|
||
Comment 13•6 years ago
|
||
Please request Beta approval on this when you get a chance.
Assignee | ||
Comment 14•6 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 9046750 [details] [diff] [review]
Check that we didn't already create an IPCDoc for the DocAccessible. r?Jamie!
Beta/Release Uplift Approval Request
- Feature/Bug causing the regression: None
- User impact if declined: Possible UAF
- Is this code covered by automated tests?: Yes
- Has the fix been verified in Nightly?: Yes
- Needs manual test from QE?: No
- If yes, steps to reproduce:
- List of other uplifts needed: None
- Risk to taking this patch: Medium
- Why is the change risky/not risky? (and alternatives if risky): We have good test coverage for this. On the other hand the code path that leads to this UAF is not easily reproducible, so its testing in Nightly is limited.
- String changes made/needed:
Comment 15•6 years ago
|
||
![]() |
||
Comment 16•6 years ago
|
||
uplift |
Comment 17•6 years ago
|
||
(In reply to Eitan Isaacson [:eeejay] from comment #14)
- Is this code covered by automated tests?: Yes
- Needs manual test from QE?: No
Per comment 14, this is covered by tests and don't require manual testing.
Updated•6 years ago
|
Updated•6 years ago
|
Description
•