1762908 - Crash in [@ mozilla::dom::quota::OriginInfo::LockedDecreaseUsage]

Status: NEW

(Core :: Storage: Quota Manager, defect, P2)

Description

[[:philipp]]

Crash report: https://crash-stats.mozilla.org/report/index/763f4ef1-2988-4090-9e2f-3e3680220404

MOZ_CRASH Reason: MOZ_RELEASE_ASSERT(isSome())

Top 10 frames of crashing thread:

0 xul.dll mozilla::dom::quota::OriginInfo::LockedDecreaseUsage dom/quota/ActorsParent.cpp:7244
1 xul.dll mozilla::dom::quota::QuotaManager::DecreaseUsageForClient dom/quota/ActorsParent.cpp:3934
2 xul.dll mozilla::dom::indexedDB::`anonymous namespace'::DeleteFile dom/indexedDB/ActorsParent.cpp:5795
3 xul.dll mozilla::dom::indexedDB::`anonymous namespace'::DeleteFile dom/indexedDB/ActorsParent.cpp:5812
4 xul.dll mozilla::dom::indexedDB::`anonymous namespace'::RemoveDatabaseFilesAndDirectory dom/indexedDB/ActorsParent.cpp:5984
5 xul.dll mozilla::dom::indexedDB::`anonymous namespace'::DeleteDatabaseOp::VersionChangeOp::Run dom/indexedDB/ActorsParent.cpp:17517
6 xul.dll nsThread::ProcessNextEvent xpcom/threads/nsThread.cpp:1146
7 xul.dll mozilla::ipc::MessagePumpForNonMainThreads::Run ipc/glue/MessagePump.cpp:330
8 xul.dll MessageLoop::RunHandler ipc/chromium/src/base/message_loop.cc:324
9 xul.dll MessageLoop::Run ipc/chromium/src/base/message_loop.cc:306

this crash signature is newly popping up again since the firefox 98 release, and with the current 91esr as well.
so it might be a recent regression from one of the code changes going into 91.7.0esr:
https://hg.mozilla.org/releases/mozilla-esr91/pushloghtml?fromchange=FIREFOX_91_6_0esr_RELEASE&tochange=FIREFOX_91_7_0esr_RELEASE

Comment 1

[Jens Stutte [:jstutte]]

Jan, in 98 landed bug 1733054 but IIUC this has not been uplifted to ESR, yet?

Comment 2

[Jens Stutte [:jstutte]]

FWIW I transformed the pushlog into a buglist but I cannot see anything obvious.

Comment 3

[Jens Stutte [:jstutte]]

I cracked up a dump and it seems we fail on the line AssertNoUnderflow(mClientUsages[aClientType].value(), aSize);, more precise on the mClientUsages[aClientType].value() access. That would be the equivalent of the assert just one line above.

A search for mClientUsages[mClientType].value shows that in most other places we use mClientUsages[mClientType].valueOr(0). That seems slightly inconsistent?

Comment 4

[Marco Castelluccio [:marco]]

Given the low volume of the crash, should this be S3 instead of S2?

Comment 5

[Marco Castelluccio [:marco]]

(In reply to Marco Castelluccio [:marco] from comment #4)

Given the low volume of the crash, should this be S3 instead of S2?

Needinfo for the above ^