"ASSERTION: nsSimpleURI not thread-safe" through nsInputStreamTransport destructor

RESOLVED FIXED in mozilla1.9.2a1

Status

()

Core
Networking
--
minor
RESOLVED FIXED
10 years ago
9 years ago

People

(Reporter: Jesse Ruderman, Assigned: timeless)

Tracking

({assertion})

Trunk
mozilla1.9.2a1
assertion
Points:
---

Firefox Tracking Flags

(Not tracked)

Details

Attachments

(1 attachment, 2 obsolete attachments)

(Reporter)

Description

10 years ago
###!!! ASSERTION: nsSimpleURI not thread-safe: '_mOwningThread.GetThread() == PR_GetCurrentThread()', file /Users/jruderman/central/netwerk/base/src/nsSimpleURI.cpp, line 73

nsSimpleURI::Internal::Release() (nsUnicharUtils.cpp:)
nsSimpleURI::Release() (nsUnicharUtils.cpp:)
nsCOMPtr<nsIURI>::~nsCOMPtr() (nsUnicharUtils.cpp:)
nsCOMPtr<nsIURI>::~nsCOMPtr() (nsUnicharUtils.cpp:)
nsJSThunk::~nsJSThunk() (nsUnicharUtils.cpp:)
nsJSThunk::Release() (nsUnicharUtils.cpp:)
nsCOMPtr<nsIInputStream>::~nsCOMPtr() (nsUnicharUtils.cpp:)
nsCOMPtr<nsIInputStream>::~nsCOMPtr() (nsUnicharUtils.cpp:)
nsInputStreamTransport::~nsInputStreamTransport() (nsUnicharUtils.cpp:)
nsInputStreamTransport::Release() (nsUnicharUtils.cpp:)
nsCOMPtr<nsIInputStream>::assign_assuming_AddRef(nsIInputStream*) (pldhash.c:)
nsCOMPtr<nsIInputStream>::assign_with_AddRef(nsISupports*) (pldhash.c:)
nsCOMPtr<nsIInputStream>::operator=(nsIInputStream*) (pldhash.c:)
nsAStreamCopier::Process() (pldhash.c:)
nsAStreamCopier::Run() (pldhash.c:)
nsThreadPool::Run() (pldhash.c:)
nsThread::ProcessNextEvent(int, int*) (pldhash.c:)
NS_ProcessNextEvent_P(nsIThread*, int) (pldhash.c:)
nsThread::ThreadFunc(void*) (pldhash.c:)
_pt_root (<command line>:47)
_pthread_start (/usr/lib/libSystem.B.dylib)
thread_start (/usr/lib/libSystem.B.dylib)

Related to bug 436341 and/or bug 450914?
(Reporter)

Updated

10 years ago
Keywords: assertion
not related to bug 450914
if we got steps to reproduce here, it'd be awesome.  Need to figure out who is creating the URI in order to do anything.
(Reporter)

Comment 3

10 years ago
I don't think I can do that.  Should I mark this bug report as incomplete?  If I manage to come up with steps later, I'll file a new bug and CC you :)
Yeah, let's go with INCOMPLETE then.
Status: UNCONFIRMED → RESOLVED
Last Resolved: 10 years ago
Resolution: --- → INCOMPLETE
(Assignee)

Comment 5

10 years ago
Created attachment 336621 [details] [diff] [review]
see thunk patch for bug 400322 for an explanataion of sorts
Assignee: nobody → timeless
Status: RESOLVED → REOPENED
Ever confirmed: true
Attachment #336621 - Flags: review?(bzbarsky)
Resolution: INCOMPLETE → ---
Attachment #336621 - Flags: review?(bzbarsky) → review+
Comment on attachment 336621 [details] [diff] [review]
see thunk patch for bug 400322 for an explanataion of sorts

>-    // Get the script string to evaluate...
>-    nsCAutoString script;
>-    nsresult rv = mURI->GetPath(script);
>-    if (NS_FAILED(rv)) return rv;
>+    NS_ENSURE_STATE(!mScript.IsEmpty());

Why are you adding that NS_ENSURE_STATE?  We didn't use to do any such thing, and I don't think we should be adding it.

>+    NS_ENSURE_STATE(!mURL.IsEmpty());

Same here.

r=bzbarsky with those two lines removed.
timeless: you have review comments in comment 6: please attach a patch addressing them, and ask for sr on it.
Whiteboard: [timeless: need new patch][timeless: request sr]
(Assignee)

Comment 8

9 years ago
Created attachment 355319 [details] [diff] [review]
per bz
Attachment #336621 - Attachment is obsolete: true
Attachment #355319 - Flags: review+
Status: REOPENED → ASSIGNED
OS: Mac OS X → All
Hardware: x86 → All
Whiteboard: [timeless: need new patch][timeless: request sr] → [timeless: pending-sr]
Comment on attachment 355319 [details] [diff] [review]
per bz

Personally, I can't wait for the new policy making it the reviewer's call whether something needs sr, rather than the receiver in a case of patch bankruptcy having to figure it out.
Attachment #355319 - Flags: superreview?(bzbarsky)
(Assignee)

Comment 10

9 years ago
Created attachment 355325 [details] [diff] [review]
per bz
Attachment #355319 - Attachment is obsolete: true
Attachment #355325 - Flags: review+
Attachment #355319 - Flags: superreview?(bzbarsky)
Comment on attachment 355325 [details] [diff] [review]
per bz

Sigh.
Attachment #355325 - Flags: superreview?(bzbarsky)
Attachment #355325 - Flags: superreview?(bzbarsky) → superreview+
http://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/b087a09f82aa (including the nsresult rv; that somehow snuck out of the second "per bz").
Status: ASSIGNED → RESOLVED
Last Resolved: 10 years ago9 years ago
Resolution: --- → FIXED
Whiteboard: [timeless: pending-sr]
Target Milestone: --- → mozilla1.9.2a1
Version: unspecified → Trunk
You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.