Seen while reviewing trunk crash stats. Now the #14 overall top crash on trunk and #1 top crash on Mac. http://tinyurl.com/25q7vnm links to all current crashes. It appears the crashes started on 6/11 and then spiked on 6/17. Not many URLs to go on as many of the crashes happened right after startup. I contacted on mozilla person who crashed and he said he had no idea how it happened.
Frame Module Signature [Expand] Source 0 libmozalloc.dylib mozalloc_abort memory/mozalloc/mozalloc_abort.cpp:64 1 libmozalloc.dylib mozalloc_handle_oom memory/mozalloc/mozalloc_oom.cpp:54 2 libmozalloc.dylib libmozalloc.dylib@0xcc0 3 XUL XUL@0x62bad6 4 XUL nsHtml5StreamParser::WriteStreamBytes parser/html/nsHtml5StreamParser.cpp:513 5 XUL nsHtml5StreamParser::DoDataAvailable parser/html/nsHtml5StreamParser.cpp:665 6 XUL nsHtml5DataAvailable::Run parser/html/nsHtml5StreamParser.cpp:705 7 XUL nsThread::ProcessNextEvent xpcom/threads/nsThread.cpp:547 8 XUL NS_ProcessNextEvent_P nsThreadUtils.cpp:250 9 XUL nsThread::ThreadFunc xpcom/threads/nsThread.cpp:263 10 libnspr4.dylib _pt_root nsprpub/pr/src/pthreads/ptthread.c:228 11 libSystem.B.dylib _pthread_start 12 libSystem.B.dylib thread_start
Approaching the 500 crash mark, which is a high for a Mac nightly. http://tinyurl.com/2fasce3 links to the crashes, which are mostly startup crashes. Comments mention: trying to start minefield while firefox is running I'm just trying to start up. https://crash-stats.mozilla.com/report/index/280ac94b-a672-4af2-b526-6ce992100622 is interesting in that a line in that stack indicates: _ZL20ProfileMissingDialogP19nsINativeAppSupport
These crashes don't show up when you filter on the "1.9.3 branch" -- as I've been used to doing for the last few months. So I completely missed them. Wierd!
They appear to all be null dereferences at: http://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/annotate/431eab8cf6ab/memory/mozalloc/mozalloc_abort.cpp#l64
I don't know how to categorize this bug report.
This stack from comment 1 signifies OOM in the HTML5 parser. If that stack starts moving up the topcrash leaderboard, the allocating code here needs to switch to explicitly fallible allocation.
Actually, these *are* Mac-specific. I've seen reports for OS X 10.5.8 and various versions of 10.6.X.
The number of these crashes over the last two weeks (460) is truly dramatic. The next legitimate entry in the Mac topcrasher list (js_UnboxDouble(long)) has only 8 crashes! (The crashes at nsCrasher::Crash(short) are in the "crashme" testing extension.) http://crash-stats.mozilla.com/query/query?product=Firefox&version=Firefox%3A3.7a6pre&platform=mac&range_value=2&range_unit=weeks&date=06%2F23%2F2010+12%3A52%3A43&query_search=signature&query_type=exact&query=&build_id=&process_type=any&hang_type=any&do_query=1
Fortunately A5 (based on the 2010-06-10 nightly) doesn't have any of these crashes.
From a random sampling of the reports in comment 8, it appears to me that the majority are 0 libmozalloc.dylib mozalloc_abort memory/mozalloc/mozalloc_abort.cpp:64 1 XUL NS_DebugBreak_P xpcom/base/nsDebugImpl.cpp:379 2 XUL XUL@0xc8185c 3 XUL base::ThreadLocalPlatform::SetValueInSlot ipc/chromium/src/base/logging.h:61 4 XUL XUL@0xc83000 5 XUL NS_InitXPCOM3_P ipc/chromium/src/base/message_loop.h:434 6 XUL ScopedXPCOMStartup::Initialize toolkit/xre/nsAppRunner.cpp:1145 7 XUL ProfileMissingDialog toolkit/xre/nsAppRunner.cpp:1901 8 XUL XRE_main toolkit/xre/nsAppRunner.cpp:3264 9 firefox-bin main browser/app/nsBrowserApp.cpp:158 10 firefox-bin firefox-bin@0xbf5 11 @0x1 I did see some crashes in the HTML5 parser that looked the same as comment 1, so I suggest we morph this bug into the OOM tracker and spin off a new bug for the startup problem. (The OOM shouldn't be mac-specific, but one never knows ...)
Spun off initialization problem into bug 574139.
(In reply to comment #1) > Frame Module Signature [Expand] Source > 0 libmozalloc.dylib mozalloc_abort > memory/mozalloc/mozalloc_abort.cpp:64 > 1 libmozalloc.dylib mozalloc_handle_oom > memory/mozalloc/mozalloc_oom.cpp:54 > 2 libmozalloc.dylib libmozalloc.dylib@0xcc0 > 3 XUL XUL@0x62bad6 I'm guessing stack frame #3 has to be the constructor for nsHtml5UTF16Buffer. I wonder why there's no symbol. > 4 XUL nsHtml5StreamParser::WriteStreamBytes > parser/html/nsHtml5StreamParser.cpp:513 Assuming that stack frame #3 is the constructor for nsHtml5UTF16Buffer, this crash is a case where the HTML5 parser allocates 1 KB at a time. Does the infallible malloc already have a mechanism for freeing stuff (killing tabs?) when it runs low on memory? If it does, is 1 KB too much to allocate at a time for the mechanism to work? If I made the HTML5 parser return NS_ERROR_OUT_OF_MEMORY to the event loop of the parser thread, what would happen? If the next buffer were pushed to the parser nonetheless and it happened to succeed, a piece of the page would be missing, which could change the executability properties of pieces of the page.
(In reply to comment #12) > Does the > infallible malloc already have a mechanism for freeing stuff (killing tabs?) > when it runs low on memory? Apparently not: http://mxr-test.konigsberg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/source/memory/mozalloc/mozalloc_oom.cpp#49 :-(
What to do here really depends on whether the infallible malloc becomes able to stop active parsers or (failing that) zap existing tabs/windows to free memory.
We're not going to have tabs in their own process(es) until FF 5. That gives us more OOM-handling options. Until then, this allocation site should be made fallible and (probably) bail on OOM. (In reply to comment #12) > If I made the HTML5 parser return NS_ERROR_OUT_OF_MEMORY to the event loop of > the parser thread, what would happen? If the next buffer were pushed to the > parser nonetheless and it happened to succeed, a piece of the page would be > missing, which could change the executability properties of pieces of the page. I can't answer that question, but it'd be easy enough to simulate an OOM here and find out.
(In reply to comment #15) > We're not going to have tabs in their own process(es) until FF 5. That gives > us more OOM-handling options. Until then, this allocation site should be made > fallible and (probably) bail on OOM. OK. :-( > (In reply to comment #12) > > If I made the HTML5 parser return NS_ERROR_OUT_OF_MEMORY to the event loop of > > the parser thread, what would happen? If the next buffer were pushed to the > > parser nonetheless and it happened to succeed, a piece of the page would be > > missing, which could change the executability properties of pieces of the page. > > I can't answer that question, but it'd be easy enough to simulate an OOM here > and find out. It seems to me that if this allocation fails, the parser needs to be flagged broken and subsequent buffer should be ignored, too, for security reasons.
Safe (as in not allowing arbitrary code execution) OOM crashes in the parser are now lower priority than Web-facing correctness fixes.
6 years ago