Closed Bug 330909 Opened 16 years ago Closed 15 years ago
Absolute Containing Block() is broken
from bug 329768 comment 7 (bz) OK, so the setup in comment 6 comes about because in ConstructBlock we push the block as an abs pos containing block if there isn't one pushed already. That's not the real bug here. The real bug (or the first half) is that GetAbsoluteContainingBlock does something different -- it returns mInitialContainingBlock if it finds nothing else. I was _sure_ we had a bug on that... In any case, what happens here is: 1) We reframe the <html> because of the style change.yet. 2) Right after that (before we get a chance to reflow) we reframe the <object>. 3) We start constructing frames and call GetAbsoluteContainingBlock() to get one. This returns mInitialContainingBlock, which is the outer table frame(!). 4) We construct a frame for the <script>. It's an abs pos frame, so we put it on the abs pos list of our absolute containing block. But that list is empty and the outer table has had no initial reflow yet, so we use SetInitialChildList to do that. 5) nsTableFrame::SetInitialChildList assumes that any aListName that is not captionList is null and sticks stuff in the principal list, clobbering whatever is there. It doesn't bother to assert that aListName is null or that mFrames is empty... If it did, debugging this would have taken about 30 seconds. :( So as I see it we have two+ bugs: 1) GetAbsoluteContainingBlock() is broken. 2a) nsTableOuterFrame::SetInitialChildList is kinda broken. 2b) nsTableOuterFrame::Reflow doesn't deal with a null mInnerTableFrame; should it?
bug 329768 fixed issue 2a and 2b.
This is still not enough, it applies the same logic as it is done inside GetFloatContaining block but even then the URL still asserts. However the dependent crash is fixed with this. (I have no clue what I am doing here :-()
Comment on attachment 215599 [details] [diff] [review] insufficient patch I think this is the right thing to do, but then again I suggested it... roc, would you review? Note that this, combined with the change proposed in bug 322625, would make things pretty much completely happy, I think.
Comment on attachment 239949 [details] [diff] [review] Updated to tip I think it's worth at least considering this on the branches... Fixes a number of our table-related crashers.
Checked in on trunk.
Status: NEW → RESOLVED
Closed: 15 years ago
Resolution: --- → FIXED
Bz - how safe is this for the branches? I'm a little nervous about touching FrameConstructor without some good trunk testing...
I think this is actually pretty safe. It will only affect pages where the root element is a display:table or is XUL (so "not typical web pages", since there the root element is a block unless the page explicitly styles the <html> element), and it will affect them only by preventing crashes. What the patch really does is make dynamic DOM changes construct closer to the same frame tree as just parsing the page. That said, I can understand reluctance to take this for 1.8.1; I have no problem with pushing this out to 184.108.40.206 if we want to get more bake time.
Alright - thanks for the detailed explanation - all other things being equal I'd like to play it safe. So I'll push to 220.127.116.11 for now.
this check-in cause bug 354088 ? "position:absolute" seems to be broken.
Ugh. Could be. I'll investigate tonight.
Depends on: 354088
Yeah, this caused bug 354088. I'll post a patch there.
Comment on attachment 239949 [details] [diff] [review] Updated to tip We'll take it for 1.8.0.x when 1.8.1.x does
Comment on attachment 239949 [details] [diff] [review] Updated to tip Approved for 1.8.0/1.8 branches, a=dveditz for drivers
v.fixed on 1.8.0 and 1.8.1 branches with Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X; en-US; rv:18.104.22.168pre) Gecko/20061128 Firefox/22.214.171.124pre and Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X; en-US; rv:126.96.36.199pre) Gecko/20061128 BonEcho/188.8.131.52pre No crash with the testcase URL in this bug, but if there are any other testcases to help us feel good about this change, please let us know.
I used the "another (not completely minimised) testcase" from the depending bug 330981: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/attachment.cgi?id=235173&action=view That crashes with: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:184.108.40.206pre) Gecko/20061123 Firefox/220.127.116.11pre But I don't crash with: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:18.104.22.168pre) Gecko/20061128 Firefox/22.214.171.124pre
Status: RESOLVED → VERIFIED
Whiteboard: [need testcase]
You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.