Crash with float and xul in <select> [@ nsFrameManager::CaptureFrameState] [@ nsFrameManager::CaptureFrameState]

RESOLVED FIXED

Status

()

Core
Layout: Floats
--
critical
RESOLVED FIXED
11 years ago
6 years ago

People

(Reporter: Jesse Ruderman, Assigned: roc)

Tracking

(Blocks: 1 bug, 4 keywords)

Trunk
crash, testcase, verified1.8.0.13, verified1.8.1.5
Points:
---
Dependency tree / graph
Bug Flags:
blocking1.9 +
blocking1.8.1.2 -
wanted1.8.1.x +
blocking1.8.0.10 -
in-testsuite +

Firefox Tracking Flags

(Not tracked)

Details

(Whiteboard: [sg:critical], crash signature)

Attachments

(2 attachments, 3 obsolete attachments)

(Reporter)

Description

11 years ago
Created attachment 250688 [details]
testcase (crashes on load or reload)

Loading this testcase in a debug build causes an assertion and a scary crash:

###!!! ASSERTION: Float frame has wrong parent: 'floatFrame->GetParent() == mBlock', file /Users/admin/trunk/mozilla/layout/generic/nsBlockReflowState.cpp, line 733

EXC_BAD_ACCESS (0x0001)
KERN_INVALID_ADDRESS (0x0001) at 0xddddddfd

Thread 0 Crashed:
0    nsIFrame::GetNextSibling() const + 20 (nsIFrame.h:738)
1    nsBlockFrame::CheckFloats(nsBlockReflowState&) + 548 (nsBlockFrame.cpp:6287)
2    nsBlockFrame::Reflow(nsPresContext*, nsHTMLReflowMetrics&, nsHTMLReflowState const&, unsigned&) + 2376 (nsBlockFrame.cpp:997)
3    nsSelectsAreaFrame::Reflow(nsPresContext*, nsHTMLReflowMetrics&, nsHTMLReflowState const&, unsigned&) + 248 (nsSelectsAreaFrame.cpp:260)

It also crash opt builds, but with a different signature, and only on reload.  The opt crashes are sometimes [@  nsFrameManager::CaptureFrameState] and sometimes somewhere else.
Flags: blocking1.9?
(Reporter)

Updated

11 years ago
Whiteboard: [sg:critical]
This is essentially the same underlying cause as bug 322436 - a float as
child of a XUL display type frame.
OS: Mac OS X 10.4 → All
Hardware: Macintosh → All
Created attachment 250703 [details] [diff] [review]
wallpaper

Here's a wallpaper that veto creating a float frame as a child of a XUL
frame during frame construction.
This will of course trigger other assertions, eg:

###!!! ASSERTION: Disagreement about whether it's a block or not: 'fromLine->IsBlock() == fromLine->mFirstChild->GetStyleDisplay()->IsBlockLevel()', file nsBlockFrame.cpp, line 2267
###!!! ASSERTION: How'd we get a floated inline frame? The frame ctor should've dealt with this.: 'aReflowState.mStyleDisplay->mFloats == NS_STYLE_FLOAT_NONE', file nsLineLayout.cpp, line 1037

but I think those are probably less harmful to have than this bug.
The patch fixes the crash and makes the text appear in the second
testcase in bug 322436.
In ff1.5.0.9 and ff2.0.0.1 debug I get the "Float frame has wrong parent" assertion, but I don't see a crash in debug or opt builds. Should we take the wallpaper patch anyway just in case, or are we better leaving it alone since there's no crash?
Flags: blocking1.8.1.2?
Depends on: 322436

Comment 4

11 years ago
Not blocking, but assigning to mats, let's see if we can figure out what the underlying problem is on the branches.  It'll be nice to take the patch if we think we need it.
Assignee: nobody → mats.palmgren
Flags: blocking1.8.1.2?
Flags: blocking1.8.1.2-
Flags: blocking1.8.0.10-

Comment 5

11 years ago
is the wall paper patch ready to go in on the trunk?

Comment 6

11 years ago
mats, who would be a good reviewer?
Whiteboard: [sg:critical] → [sg:critical] have patch, needs review
Created attachment 259507 [details] [diff] [review]
wallpaper

Updated to trunk
Attachment #250703 - Attachment is obsolete: true
(In reply to comment #6)
> is the wall paper patch ready to go in on the trunk?

Yes, I believe so. 

> mats, who would be a good reviewer?

roc, bzbarsky or dbaron I guess.  I don't know if they have plans to fix
layout of floats in XUL in the 1.9 time frame... if not, then we probably
want something like this patch...
I can review it, I guess. But what is this doing to floats in XUL? Treating them as normal in-flow content? I suppose that's probably best...
Flags: blocking1.9? → blocking1.9+
Isn't this equivalent to pushing a null float containing block before processing the kids of frames with these XUL display types, in the cases it covers?  Note that if I have an inline kid of a XUL frame we want to suppress floating of kids of the inline as well, which I don't think this patch does....
(Reporter)

Updated

10 years ago
Blocks: 334514

Comment 11

10 years ago
mats can you write the patch that Boris described?
(Reporter)

Comment 12

10 years ago
roc attached a patch to bug 322436.
(Reporter)

Comment 13

10 years ago
roc, this still crashes for me, with

###!!! ASSERTION: not in child list: 'found', file /Users/jruderman/trunk/mozilla/layout/base/nsCSSFrameConstructor.cpp, line 1774

Created attachment 267536 [details] [diff] [review]
fix

Followup fix. We should call PushFloatContainingBlock(newFrame) if newFrame is a real block.
Assignee: mats.palmgren → roc
Status: NEW → ASSIGNED
Attachment #267536 - Flags: superreview?(bzbarsky)
Attachment #267536 - Flags: review?(bzbarsky)
Comment on attachment 267536 [details] [diff] [review]
fix

Looks reasonable.
Attachment #267536 - Flags: superreview?(bzbarsky)
Attachment #267536 - Flags: superreview+
Attachment #267536 - Flags: review?(bzbarsky)
Attachment #267536 - Flags: review+
(Reporter)

Comment 16

10 years ago
Better, but now I get

###!!! ASSERTION: Please push a real float containing block!: '!aNewFloatContainingBlock || aNewFloatContainingBlock->GetContentInsertionFrame()-> IsFloatContainingBlock()', file /Users/jruderman/trunk/mozilla/layout/base/nsCSSFrameConstructor.cpp, line 1285

every time I open a Firefox browser window.
(Reporter)

Comment 17

10 years ago
Should the comment above the modified code be updated too?
Created attachment 268168 [details] [diff] [review]
updated patch

Sorry Boris ... this is better. XUL IFRAMEs and other subdocuments should not be pushed as float containing blocks.
Attachment #259507 - Attachment is obsolete: true
Attachment #267536 - Attachment is obsolete: true
Attachment #268168 - Flags: superreview?(bzbarsky)
Attachment #268168 - Flags: review?(bzbarsky)
Comment on attachment 268168 [details] [diff] [review]
updated patch

I'd reverse the condition of the ?: and the results; having the '!' there just seems to confuse things unnecessarily.

That said, why were we ever constructing any kids under the subdocument?  That shouldn't be happening, given that they're leaves, no?
Attachment #268168 - Flags: superreview?(bzbarsky)
Attachment #268168 - Flags: superreview+
Attachment #268168 - Flags: review?(bzbarsky)
Attachment #268168 - Flags: review+
Oh, we're just avoiding an assert.  Nevermind.  ;)
Checked in with comment addressed.
Status: ASSIGNED → RESOLVED
Last Resolved: 10 years ago
Resolution: --- → FIXED
Blocks: 384477
I don't crash on the 1.8 branch but I do get the following assertion
###!!! ASSERTION: Float frame has wrong parent: 'floatFrame->GetParent() == mBlock', file c:/moz/mozilla_1_8_branch/mozilla/layout/generic/nsBlockReflowState.cpp, line 847

Jesse, is this assertion important enough to get fixed on the branch?
(Reporter)

Comment 23

10 years ago
bz or roc would know better than me whether this fix is needed on branch.
Flags: wanted1.8.1.x?
Flags: blocking1.8.1.5?
Whiteboard: [sg:critical] have patch, needs review → [sg:critical] need answer to comment 22
Whiteboard: [sg:critical] need answer to comment 22 → [sg:critical] need answer from roc or bz to comment 22
I think this should be fixed on branch. A bad frame tree is very risky.
Flags: wanted1.8.1.x?
Flags: wanted1.8.1.x+
Flags: wanted1.8.0.x?
Flags: blocking1.8.1.5?
Flags: blocking1.8.1.5+
Whiteboard: [sg:critical] need answer from roc or bz to comment 22 → [sg:critical]
Attachment #268168 - Flags: approval1.8.1.5?
Attachment #268168 - Flags: approval1.8.0.13?
Comment on attachment 268168 [details] [diff] [review]
updated patch

approved for 1.8.1.5 and 1.8.0.13, a=dveditz for release-drivers
Attachment #268168 - Flags: approval1.8.1.5?
Attachment #268168 - Flags: approval1.8.1.5+
Attachment #268168 - Flags: approval1.8.0.13?
Attachment #268168 - Flags: approval1.8.0.13+
Can we push this to 1.8.1.6/1.8.0.14? I'm not comfortable pushing this into the branch in a rush.
Flags: blocking1.8.1.5+ → blocking1.8.1.6+
Attachment #268168 - Flags: approval1.8.1.6?
Attachment #268168 - Flags: approval1.8.1.5-
Attachment #268168 - Flags: approval1.8.1.5+
This was actually checked in earlier today to fix bug 384344, which is a merge
of this fix and bug 322436.  If you're not comfortable with it we should
back that out.  Sorry for the confusion, I should have let it be handled
by the respective bugs instead of course... my bad.
No, I guess that's OK. At least I'm not on the hook :-)
Flags: wanted1.8.0.x?
Keywords: fixed1.8.0.13, fixed1.8.1.5
Blocks: 384344
Flags: blocking1.8.1.6+
verified fixed 1.8.1.5 using  Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X; en-US; rv:1.8.1.5) Gecko/2007071317 Firefox/2.0.0.5 and on Windows XP - no crash on testcase - adding verified keyword
Keywords: fixed1.8.1.5 → verified1.8.1.5
Verified on MacIntel using Thunderbird version 1.5.0.13 (20070809). Used Thunderbrowse extension to load testcase. No crash. 
Keywords: fixed1.8.0.13 → verified1.8.0.13
Comment on attachment 268168 [details] [diff] [review]
updated patch

clearing approval 1.8.1.7 request, this ended up landing in 1.8.1.5 after all (see above comments)
Attachment #268168 - Flags: approval1.8.1.7?
Group: security
Flags: in-testsuite?
(Reporter)

Comment 32

10 years ago
Crashtest checked in.
Flags: in-testsuite? → in-testsuite+
Crash Signature: [@ nsFrameManager::CaptureFrameState] [@ nsFrameManager::CaptureFrameState]
You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.