check ImageDataSerializer return values for error in a few places
Categories
(Core :: Graphics, defect)
Tracking
()
People
(Reporter: tnikkel, Assigned: tnikkel)
References
Details
(Keywords: sec-audit, Whiteboard: [adv-main149-][adv-ESR140.9-])
Attachments
(3 files)
|
48 bytes,
text/x-phabricator-request
|
Details | Review | |
|
48 bytes,
text/x-phabricator-request
|
phab-bot
:
approval-mozilla-beta+
|
Details | Review |
|
48 bytes,
text/x-phabricator-request
|
phab-bot
:
approval-mozilla-esr140+
|
Details | Review |
Not checking these caused a few sec bugs to be filed for other places. Just check all the ones I found.
| Assignee | ||
Comment 1•5 months ago
|
||
| Assignee | ||
Updated•5 months ago
|
Comment 3•5 months ago
|
||
Updated•5 months ago
|
| Assignee | ||
Comment 4•5 months ago
|
||
Updated•5 months ago
|
Comment 5•5 months ago
|
||
firefox-beta Uplift Approval Request
- User impact if declined: checks return value of functions that validate image buffers instead of accepting them
- Code covered by automated testing: yes
- Fix verified in Nightly: no
- Needs manual QE test: no
- Steps to reproduce for manual QE testing:
- Risk associated with taking this patch: low
- Explanation of risk level: checks return value of functions that validate image buffers instead of accepting them
- String changes made/needed: none
- Is Android affected?: yes
| Assignee | ||
Comment 6•5 months ago
|
||
Updated•5 months ago
|
Comment 7•5 months ago
|
||
firefox-esr140 Uplift Approval Request
- User impact if declined: checks return value of functions that validate image buffers instead of accepting them
- Code covered by automated testing: yes
- Fix verified in Nightly: no
- Needs manual QE test: no
- Steps to reproduce for manual QE testing:
- Risk associated with taking this patch: low
- Explanation of risk level: checks return value of functions that validate image buffers instead of accepting them
- String changes made/needed: none
- Is Android affected?: yes
Updated•5 months ago
|
Timothy, your patch does not apply cleanly to beta, could you check this please? Thanks
| Assignee | ||
Comment 9•5 months ago
|
||
Please uplift these patches in the order bug 2018113, bug 2021592, then bug 2020091 (this bug). Not sure how best to represent that. I created the uplift requests in that order with those patches applied to the latest beta/esr 140 tree, so they should apply when done in that order.
OK, there is a parent/child dependency in such cases that you can set when you use the Lando uplift process, otherwise mentioning what you just put in the comment in the uplift request form is fine :)
| Assignee | ||
Comment 11•5 months ago
|
||
I thought moz-phab would have set the parent/child relationship because I had the changesets in my tree when I uplifted them, but I did a seperate uplift for each bug.
Updated•4 months ago
|
Comment 12•4 months ago
|
||
| uplift | ||
Updated•4 months ago
|
Updated•4 months ago
|
Comment 13•4 months ago
|
||
| uplift | ||
Comment 14•4 months ago
|
||
| uplift | ||
Updated•4 months ago
|
| Assignee | ||
Updated•4 months ago
|
Comment 16•4 months ago
|
||
| uplift | ||
Updated•4 months ago
|
Updated•4 months ago
|
Updated•13 days ago
|
Description
•