Closed
Bug 323826
Opened 20 years ago
Closed 20 years ago
Uninstall of an extension that contains a windows .lnk fails (in some cases breaking all operations)
Categories
(Toolkit :: Add-ons Manager, defect)
Tracking
()
RESOLVED
FIXED
People
(Reporter: robert.strong.bugs, Assigned: robert.strong.bugs)
References
Details
(Keywords: fixed1.8.0.4, fixed1.8.1)
Attachments
(2 files, 1 obsolete file)
|
1.41 KB,
patch
|
benjamin
:
review+
robert.strong.bugs
:
approval-branch-1.8.1+
davel
:
approval1.8.0.2-
dveditz
:
approval1.8.0.4+
|
Details | Diff | Splinter Review |
|
692 bytes,
application/x-xpinstall
|
Details |
Turns out that an extension was distributed that contains a xulrunner.lnk file that is zero bytes in size. I am sure that it was just an oversight by the extension author and this is an edgecase but it is an edgecase we should not fail on. Patch coming up.
| Assignee | ||
Comment 1•20 years ago
|
||
Attachment #208795 -
Flags: review?(benjamin)
| Assignee | ||
Comment 2•20 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 208795 [details] [diff] [review]
patch (don't follow symbolic links)
I'm going to look into this a little bit more... it turns out the install failed for me when the xpi contained a .lnk so I am not yet sure how this situation occured in the first place. The bug demonstrated by the files that were sent to me is fixed by the patch but it may need a bit more bullet proofing.
Attachment #208795 -
Flags: review?(benjamin)
| Assignee | ||
Comment 3•20 years ago
|
||
Attachment #208795 -
Attachment is obsolete: true
| Assignee | ||
Updated•20 years ago
|
Attachment #208817 -
Flags: review?(benjamin)
Updated•20 years ago
|
Attachment #208817 -
Flags: review?(benjamin) → review+
| Assignee | ||
Comment 4•20 years ago
|
||
Fixed on trunk
new revision: 1.167; previous revision: 1.166
Status: NEW → RESOLVED
Closed: 20 years ago
Resolution: --- → FIXED
| Assignee | ||
Updated•20 years ago
|
Attachment #208817 -
Flags: branch-1.8.1+
| Assignee | ||
Comment 6•20 years ago
|
||
*** Bug 318760 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
| Assignee | ||
Comment 7•20 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 208817 [details] [diff] [review]
patch (never follow symbolic links returned from EM getDir functions)
Requesting 1.8.0.2 - this is an edgecase but all we need to break the Extension Manager for a lot of users is for one popular extension to be distributed with a zero byte .lnk file in it. The only way for the user to recover is to manually delete the extension's directory when this occurs without this patch.
Attachment #208817 -
Flags: approval1.8.0.2?
Comment 8•20 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 208817 [details] [diff] [review]
patch (never follow symbolic links returned from EM getDir functions)
as per discussion in triage meeting 23-feb-2006
Attachment #208817 -
Flags: approval1.8.0.3?
Attachment #208817 -
Flags: approval1.8.0.2?
Attachment #208817 -
Flags: approval1.8.0.2-
Updated•20 years ago
|
Flags: blocking1.8.0.3?
Comment 9•20 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 208817 [details] [diff] [review]
patch (never follow symbolic links returned from EM getDir functions)
Hmm... setting followLinks to false has no effect on Linux. Will this bug still occur on Linux with a malformed symlink?
| Assignee | ||
Comment 10•20 years ago
|
||
iirc this bug doesn't occur on Linux. I'll verify if / when I have the time if someone doesn't beat me to it.
Updated•20 years ago
|
Flags: blocking1.8.0.3? → blocking1.8.0.3+
Comment 11•20 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 208817 [details] [diff] [review]
patch (never follow symbolic links returned from EM getDir functions)
approved for 1.8.0 branch, a=dveditz for drivers
Attachment #208817 -
Flags: approval1.8.0.3? → approval1.8.0.3+
Comment 12•20 years ago
|
||
(In reply to comment #7)
> Requesting 1.8.0.2 - this is an edgecase but all we need to break the
> Extension Manager for a lot of users
Could you elaborate? It sounds like you're saying it's worse than "can't uninstall this one extension". What does QA need to test?
| Assignee | ||
Comment 13•20 years ago
|
||
It can break extension installs, upgrades, and uninstalls for an extension. In thinking on it, I believe the original reporter had installed the extension with 1.0 which didn't have this problem and then upgraded. At that point there is no way to install, upgrade, or uninstall the extension except by manually removing it from the file system. Once this breakage occurs, the extension manager can end up in a state where additional operations will fail due to it trying to complete an operation - usually an uninstall - on the extension that contains a zero byte .lnk file.
I'll attach a testcase shortly
| Assignee | ||
Comment 14•20 years ago
|
||
A test xpi that contains a zero byte .lnk file which can't be uninstalled or upgraded with 1.5.0.x
| Assignee | ||
Updated•20 years ago
|
Summary: Uninstall of an extension that contains a windows .lnk fails → Uninstall of an extension that contains a windows .lnk fails (in some cases breaking all operations)
| Assignee | ||
Comment 15•20 years ago
|
||
Checked in to MOZILLA_1_8_0_BRANCH
Checking in mozilla/toolkit/mozapps/extensions/src/nsExtensionManager.js.in;
/cvsroot/mozilla/toolkit/mozapps/extensions/src/nsExtensionManager.js.in,v <-- nsExtensionManager.js.in
new revision: 1.144.2.16.2.4; previous revision: 1.144.2.16.2.3
Keywords: fixed1.8.0.3
Updated•18 years ago
|
Product: Firefox → Toolkit
You need to log in
before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description
•