Crash due to insufficient class checking in Date class




11 years ago
9 years ago


(Reporter: joachim.kuebart, Assigned: igor)


({regression, verified1.9.0.4})

regression, verified1.9.0.4
Bug Flags:
blocking1.9.0.4 +
wanted1.8.1.x -
wanted1.8.0.x -
in-testsuite +
in-litmus -

Firefox Tracking Flags

(Not tracked)


(Whiteboard: [sg:critical?] post 1.8 branch, URL)


(3 attachments)



11 years ago
User-Agent:       Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-GB; rv: Gecko/2008070208 Firefox/3.0.1
Build Identifier: 

This bug crashes the browser without any possibility for user intervention. This is exploitable in the browser. Do *not* click the given link if you want to keep anything in your current Firefox session.

Reproducible: Always

Steps to Reproduce:

  (new Date()) Function())

Actual Results:  
jsshell (or Firefox) crash.

Expected Results:  

The built-in Date class doesn't check the class of its "this" object sufficiently. Affected methods are getYear(), getMonth(), getDate() and so on.

This affects all of Date's methods that internally call GetLocalTime() (in jsdate.c) which doesn't check the class of object passed in (compare with JS_InstanceOf() call in GetUTCTime()). The object passed in needs to have at least 2 private slots, like

 a) the global object
 b) Function objects
 c) Iterator objects

The value from the private slot is passed to JSVAL_TO_DOUBLE() without further checks in GetLocalTime(), leading to bogus pointer dereference for objects not of class Date.

In addition to adding this to the test suite, this sort of thing could be added to jsparsefuzz.js (i.e. the fuzzer should be modified to use <method>.call() with random arguments if it's not already doing this).

I don't have time right now to check out a current tree and post a patch and will not get around to it until some time next week.


11 years ago
Assignee: general → igor

Comment 1

11 years ago
Posted patch fix v1Splinter Review
The essence of the fix is the addition of the missing instanceof check for GetAndCacheLocalTime. I also took an opportunity in the patch to replace heavy JS_(Get|Set)ReservvedSlot calls with direct slot access for simpler code.
Attachment #336054 - Flags: review?(mrbkap)

Comment 2

11 years ago
Igor's patch should fix the issue AFAICS. If needed I can report back next week when I get a chance to build trunk and verify.
Preserving a copy of the testcase in Bugzilla.
Attachment #336054 - Flags: review?(mrbkap) → review+
Much nicer -- thanks, Igor.



11 years ago
Last Resolved: 11 years ago
Flags: blocking1.9.0.2?
Flags: blocking1.8.1.18?
Resolution: --- → FIXED


11 years ago
Attachment #336054 - Flags: approval1.9.0.2?

Comment 6

11 years ago
Comment on attachment 336054 [details] [diff] [review]
fix v1

The patch applies to 1.9.0 branch as-is.

Comment 7

11 years ago
The bug only exists on 1.9.0 and later and is an regression from the bug 340992.
Blocks: 340992
Flags: blocking1.8.1.18?
Is it worth doing a version of the patch that only has the fix and not the cleanup, for risk reduction on 1.9.0.x?
(In reply to comment #8)
> Is it worth doing a version of the patch that only has the fix and not the
> cleanup, for risk reduction on 1.9.0.x?

There's no risk reduction in messing with a reviewed patch that cuts out overhead and doubt about reserved slot complexities that do not affect fslots' dimension or lifetime. Making more variation between trees adds tiny risk too, probably more than any risk in sticking this patch in as-is. But it's too tiny to estimate or measure, or to be worth arguing much about.

/be is in release testing, this will have to sail with the next ship.
Flags: wanted1.8.1.x-
Flags: blocking1.9.0.3+
Flags: blocking1.9.0.2?
Keywords: regression
Whiteboard: [sg:critical?] post 1.8 branch
Attachment #336054 - Flags: approval1.9.0.2? → approval1.9.0.3?
Comment on attachment 336054 [details] [diff] [review]
fix v1

Approved for, a=dveditz for release-drivers
Attachment #336054 - Flags: approval1.9.0.3? → approval1.9.0.3+

Comment 12

11 years ago
Posted patch fix for 1.9.0Splinter Review
It turned out the patch required a trivial change for 1.9.0. It applies as-is, but the trunk version uses const to define constant names. But that does not work with in C sources as in C such constants are not real constant expressions. So I replaced constants with the preprocessor macros. 

Here is the plain diff between the trunk and the branch patches:

diff  /home/igor/s/fix_date.patch /home/igor/s/fix_date.1.9.0.patch
< +++ jsdate.c	27 Oct 2008 17:22:47 -0000
> +++ jsdate.c	27 Oct 2008 17:21:59 -0000
< +const uint32 JSSLOT_UTC_TIME    = JSSLOT_PRIVATE;
< +const uint32 JSSLOT_LOCAL_TIME  = JSSLOT_PRIVATE + 1;
< +const uint32 DATE_RESERVED_SLOTS = 2;
> +#define DATE_RESERVED_SLOTS     2
Attachment #344937 - Flags: review+

Comment 13

11 years ago
I landed the patch from the comment 12 on 1.9.0 branch:

Checking in jsdate.c;
/cvsroot/mozilla/js/src/jsdate.c,v  <--  jsdate.c
new revision: 3.112; previous revision: 3.111
Keywords: fixed1.9.0.4
We now get the exception "TypeError on line 1: Date.prototype.getMonth called on incompatible Function"

Verified for with  Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.5; en-US; rv: Gecko/2008102804 GranParadiso/3.0.4pre.

Same behavior in Trunk as well with Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.5; en-US; rv:1.9.1b2pre) Gecko/20081028 Minefield/3.1b2pre.
Keywords: fixed1.9.0.4 → verified1.9.0.4
Group: core-security
Checking in ecma_3/Date/regress-452786.js;
/cvsroot/mozilla/js/tests/ecma_3/Date/regress-452786.js,v  <--  regress-452786.js
initial revision: 1.1
Flags: in-testsuite+
Flags: in-litmus-


10 years ago
Flags: wanted1.8.0.x-
You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.