Crash in [@ mozilla::ipc::FatalError | mozilla::ipc::IProtocol::HandleFatalError | IPC::MessageWriter::FatalError]
Categories
(Core :: IPC, defect)
Tracking
()
People
(Reporter: aryx, Unassigned)
References
Details
(Keywords: crash, topcrash)
Crash Data
This is top crash signature #5 for recent 107 betas (70 crashes from 70 different installs of Firefox 107.0b7). Unfortunately, the stacks are different but all reports are for Windows.
Jed, could you take a look at this, please?
Crash report: https://crash-stats.mozilla.org/report/index/12d3cebe-6eeb-47e1-8166-de79f0221102
MOZ_CRASH Reason: MOZ_CRASH(IPC FatalError in the parent process!)
Top 10 frames of crashing thread:
0 xul.dll mozilla::ipc::FatalError ipc/glue/ProtocolUtils.cpp:170
1 xul.dll mozilla::ipc::IProtocol::HandleFatalError const ipc/glue/ProtocolUtils.cpp:402
2 xul.dll IPC::MessageWriter::FatalError const ipc/chromium/src/chrome/common/ipc_message_utils.h:116
2 xul.dll IPC::MessageBufferWriter::MessageBufferWriter ipc/chromium/src/chrome/common/ipc_message_utils.cc:32
3 xul.dll IPC::ParamTraits<JSStructuredCloneData>::Write ipc/glue/SerializedStructuredCloneBuffer.cpp:25
4 xul.dll IPC::WriteParam ipc/chromium/src/chrome/common/ipc_message_utils.h:291
4 xul.dll IPC::ParamTraits<mozilla::SerializedStructuredCloneBuffer>::Write ipc/glue/SerializedStructuredCloneBuffer.h:77
4 xul.dll IPC::WriteParam ipc/chromium/src/chrome/common/ipc_message_utils.h:291
4 xul.dll IPC::ParamTraits<mozilla::dom::indexedDB::SerializedStructuredCloneReadInfo>::Write ipc/ipdl/PBackgroundIDBSharedTypes.cpp:663
4 xul.dll IPC::WriteParam ipc/chromium/src/chrome/common/ipc_message_utils.h:291
Comment 1•2 years ago
|
||
The bug is linked to a topcrash signature, which matches the following criterion:
- Top 20 desktop browser crashes on beta
:jld, could you consider increasing the severity of this top-crash bug?
For more information, please visit auto_nag documentation.
Updated•2 years ago
|
Comment 2•2 years ago
|
||
This looks like a duplicate of bug 1794059; the crash is handled differently in parent vs. child processes, probably for historical reasons.
I don't have a full explanation for why bug 1794059 appeared immediately but this form of the crash appears to be more recent; maybe there was a signature change? In any case this is likely to be an OOM and we may not be able to do much about it.
Updated•2 years ago
|
Description
•