Closed Bug 541739 Opened 15 years ago Closed 14 years ago

Flaws in download cancellation checks when switching the private browsing mode

Categories

(Firefox :: Private Browsing, defect)

3.5 Branch
defect
Not set
major

Tracking

()

RESOLVED FIXED
Firefox 3.7a5
Tracking Status
blocking2.0 --- final+
status1.9.2 --- wanted
blocking1.9.1 --- -
status1.9.1 --- wontfix

People

(Reporter: ehsan.akhgari, Assigned: ehsan.akhgari)

References

Details

(Keywords: dataloss)

Attachments

(1 file)

I discovered two major flaws in the private browsing implementation inside the download manager module. 1. We should prompt for all active downloads when the user is leaving the private browsing mode, not just non-resumable ones. Because once the user leaves the private browsing mode, they will no longer be able to access their downloads inside the PB mode. 2. We fail to register the NS_PRIVATE_BROWSING_REQUEST_TOPIC observer, which means that the prompting code has never been in effect, and so far the download manager had never prompted any user while switching the PB mode. I have a patch which fixes both these issues, and also adds a test to make sure that this behavior would not regress in the future.
Attached patch Patch (v1)Splinter Review
Attachment #423192 - Flags: review?(sdwilsh)
Won't take this in 3.5, will take a reviewed/tested/baked patch in a future 3.6 release but not "blocking".
blocking1.9.1: ? → -
blocking1.9.2: ? → ---
Comment on attachment 423192 [details] [diff] [review] Patch (v1) nit: (void) the unchecked AddObserver call please r=sdwilsh
Attachment #423192 - Flags: review?(sdwilsh) → review+
Status: NEW → RESOLVED
Closed: 15 years ago
Flags: in-testsuite+
Resolution: --- → FIXED
Target Milestone: --- → Firefox 3.7a1
Attachment #423192 - Flags: approval1.9.2.1?
Backed out due to test failures, please stick around in #developers for a time after landing to deal with any problems that occur. http://tinderbox.mozilla.org/showlog.cgi?log=Firefox/1264558062.1264560235.20213.gz http://tinderbox.mozilla.org/showlog.cgi?log=Firefox/1264557643.1264561123.30692.gz
Status: RESOLVED → REOPENED
Resolution: FIXED → ---
Attachment #423192 - Flags: approval1.9.2.1?
So, the test actually passes, but asserts after being finished: TEST-INFO | (xpcshell/head.js) | test 1 pending TEST-INFO | (xpcshell/head.js) | test 2 pending *** Throwing trying to get TmpD *** Throwing trying to get ProfD *** Throwing trying to get UHist TEST-PASS | /Users/ehsanakhgari/moz/obj-ff-dbg/_tests/xpcshell/test_dm/unit/test_privatebrowsing_cancel.js | [run_test : 154] 0 == 0 pldhash: for the table at address 0x582e8c0, the given entrySize of 48 probably favors chaining over double hashing. *** Throwing trying to get cachePDir *** Throwing trying to get ProfLD *** Throwing trying to get cachePDir TEST-INFO | (xpcshell/head.js) | test 2 finished TEST-INFO | (xpcshell/head.js) | running event loop TEST-PASS | /Users/ehsanakhgari/moz/obj-ff-dbg/_tests/xpcshell/test_dm/unit/test_privatebrowsing_cancel.js | [anonymous : 164] false == false TEST-PASS | /Users/ehsanakhgari/moz/obj-ff-dbg/_tests/xpcshell/test_dm/unit/test_privatebrowsing_cancel.js | [anonymous : 171] true == true TEST-PASS | /Users/ehsanakhgari/moz/obj-ff-dbg/_tests/xpcshell/test_dm/unit/test_privatebrowsing_cancel.js | [anonymous : 172] false == false TEST-PASS | /Users/ehsanakhgari/moz/obj-ff-dbg/_tests/xpcshell/test_dm/unit/test_privatebrowsing_cancel.js | [anonymous : 175] 0 != 4 pldhash: for the table at address 0x46dbb78, the given entrySize of 52 probably favors chaining over double hashing. pldhash: for the table at address 0x46de180, the given entrySize of 80 definitely favors chaining over double hashing. TEST-PASS | /Users/ehsanakhgari/moz/obj-ff-dbg/_tests/xpcshell/test_dm/unit/test_privatebrowsing_cancel.js | [anonymous : 182] true == true TEST-PASS | /Users/ehsanakhgari/moz/obj-ff-dbg/_tests/xpcshell/test_dm/unit/test_privatebrowsing_cancel.js | [anonymous : 183] true == true TEST-PASS | /Users/ehsanakhgari/moz/obj-ff-dbg/_tests/xpcshell/test_dm/unit/test_privatebrowsing_cancel.js | [anonymous : 186] 3 == 3 TEST-PASS | /Users/ehsanakhgari/moz/obj-ff-dbg/_tests/xpcshell/test_dm/unit/test_privatebrowsing_cancel.js | [anonymous : 190] false == false *** Throwing trying to get UMimTyp *** Throwing trying to get UMimTyp TEST-PASS | /Users/ehsanakhgari/moz/obj-ff-dbg/_tests/xpcshell/test_dm/unit/test_privatebrowsing_cancel.js | [anonymous : 202] true == true TEST-PASS | /Users/ehsanakhgari/moz/obj-ff-dbg/_tests/xpcshell/test_dm/unit/test_privatebrowsing_cancel.js | [anonymous : 206] false == false TEST-PASS | /Users/ehsanakhgari/moz/obj-ff-dbg/_tests/xpcshell/test_dm/unit/test_privatebrowsing_cancel.js | [anonymous : 207] true == true *** Throwing trying to get UMimTyp TEST-PASS | /Users/ehsanakhgari/moz/obj-ff-dbg/_tests/xpcshell/test_dm/unit/test_privatebrowsing_cancel.js | [anonymous : 219] true == true TEST-PASS | /Users/ehsanakhgari/moz/obj-ff-dbg/_tests/xpcshell/test_dm/unit/test_privatebrowsing_cancel.js | [anonymous : 226] true == true TEST-PASS | /Users/ehsanakhgari/moz/obj-ff-dbg/_tests/xpcshell/test_dm/unit/test_privatebrowsing_cancel.js | [anonymous : 227] true == true TEST-PASS | /Users/ehsanakhgari/moz/obj-ff-dbg/_tests/xpcshell/test_dm/unit/test_privatebrowsing_cancel.js | [anonymous : 230] 0 != 4 TEST-PASS | /Users/ehsanakhgari/moz/obj-ff-dbg/_tests/xpcshell/test_dm/unit/test_privatebrowsing_cancel.js | [anonymous : 202] true == true TEST-PASS | /Users/ehsanakhgari/moz/obj-ff-dbg/_tests/xpcshell/test_dm/unit/test_privatebrowsing_cancel.js | [anonymous : 237] true == true TEST-PASS | /Users/ehsanakhgari/moz/obj-ff-dbg/_tests/xpcshell/test_dm/unit/test_privatebrowsing_cancel.js | [anonymous : 238] false == false TEST-PASS | /Users/ehsanakhgari/moz/obj-ff-dbg/_tests/xpcshell/test_dm/unit/test_privatebrowsing_cancel.js | [anonymous : 241] 4 == 4 TEST-PASS | /Users/ehsanakhgari/moz/obj-ff-dbg/_tests/xpcshell/test_dm/unit/test_privatebrowsing_cancel.js | [finishTest : 118] 0 == 0 TEST-INFO | (xpcshell/head.js) | test 1 finished TEST-INFO | (xpcshell/head.js) | exiting test TEST-PASS | (xpcshell/head.js) | 21 (+ 0) check(s) passed ###!!! ASSERTION: ### mem cache leaking entries?: 'mEntryCount == 0', file /Users/ehsanakhgari/moz/src/netwerk/cache/src/nsMemoryCacheDevice.cpp, line 130 nsMemoryCacheDevice::Shutdown()+0x00000261 [/Users/ehsanakhgari/moz/obj-ff-dbg/dist/bin/XUL +0x001DA8B3] nsMemoryCacheDevice::~nsMemoryCacheDevice()+0x00000026 [/Users/ehsanakhgari/moz/obj-ff-dbg/dist/bin/XUL +0x001DA8F4] nsCacheService::Shutdown()+0x000000D4 [/Users/ehsanakhgari/moz/obj-ff-dbg/dist/bin/XUL +0x001D5B6E] nsCacheProfilePrefObserver::Observe(nsISupports*, char const*, unsigned short const*)+0x000000CB [/Users/ehsanakhgari/moz/obj-ff-dbg/dist/bin/XUL +0x001D6E5B] nsObserverList::NotifyObservers(nsISupports*, char const*, unsigned short const*)+0x00000061 [/Users/ehsanakhgari/moz/obj-ff-dbg/dist/bin/XUL +0x01346F5B] nsObserverService::NotifyObservers(nsISupports*, char const*, unsigned short const*)+0x0000014C [/Users/ehsanakhgari/moz/obj-ff-dbg/dist/bin/XUL +0x01347FC8] mozilla::ShutdownXPCOM(nsIServiceManager*)+0x000001ED [/Users/ehsanakhgari/moz/obj-ff-dbg/dist/bin/XUL +0x01337172] NS_ShutdownXPCOM_P+0x00000011 [/Users/ehsanakhgari/moz/obj-ff-dbg/dist/bin/XUL +0x01337654] NS_ShutdownXPCOM+0x00000011 [/Users/ehsanakhgari/moz/obj-ff-dbg/dist/bin/libxpcom.dylib +0x000019FF] main+0x00000CF5 [/Users/ehsanakhgari/moz/obj-ff-dbg/dist/bin/xpcshell +0x0000580A] start+0x00000036 [/Users/ehsanakhgari/moz/obj-ff-dbg/dist/bin/xpcshell +0x000019E6] Shawn, do you have any idea what might be going on here?
(In reply to comment #8) > Shawn, do you have any idea what might be going on here? I know zero about that code.
Depends on: 567680
I found out that the assertion in comment 8 was caused by a bug in the cache code. I filed that as bug 567680 with a patch. Once that patch lands, this one can also reland without modification.
Status: REOPENED → ASSIGNED
Status: ASSIGNED → RESOLVED
Closed: 15 years ago14 years ago
Resolution: --- → FIXED
Target Milestone: Firefox 3.7a1 → Firefox 3.7a5
Comment on attachment 423192 [details] [diff] [review] Patch (v1) The unit test for this bug requires the patch in bug 567680 as well (which should be pretty safe.) I'll apply that patch for approval as well.
Attachment #423192 - Flags: approval1.9.2.5?
Status: RESOLVED → REOPENED
Resolution: FIXED → ---
Depends on: 567821
FWIW, I've verified that my patch in bug 567821 solves the unit test failures. I'm currently waiting for Gavin's review of that patch to land this bug.
Status: REOPENED → ASSIGNED
Status: ASSIGNED → RESOLVED
Closed: 14 years ago14 years ago
Resolution: --- → FIXED
Comment on attachment 423192 [details] [diff] [review] Patch (v1) We will not be taking this for 3.6.6. Moving approval request forward. If you disagree, send me an email.
Attachment #423192 - Flags: approval1.9.2.7?
Attachment #423192 - Flags: approval1.9.2.6-
Attachment #423192 - Flags: approval1.9.2.5?
blocking2.0: ? → final+
Christian, what happened to the approval request on this bug? Did it get lost somewhere along the way?
Attachment #423192 - Flags: approval1.9.2.9?
You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.

Attachment

General

Created:
Updated:
Size: