Closed
Bug 602516
Opened 14 years ago
Closed 14 years ago
Either PresShell::Freeze needs to consistently null check mDocument to avoid a crash [@ PresShell::UpdateImageLockingState]
Categories
(Core :: Layout, defect)
Core
Layout
Tracking
()
RESOLVED
FIXED
mozilla2.0b8
People
(Reporter: timeless, Assigned: timeless)
References
(Blocks 1 open bug)
Details
(Keywords: coverity)
Attachments
(1 file, 1 obsolete file)
958 bytes,
patch
|
bzbarsky
:
review+
bzbarsky
:
approval2.0+
|
Details | Diff | Splinter Review |
7273 PresShell::Freeze() deref mDocument: 7277 mDocument->EnumerateFreezableElements(FreezeElement, nsnull); 7279 if (mCaret) 7280 mCaret->SetCaretVisible(PR_FALSE); Null check for mDocument: 7284 if (mDocument) 7285 mDocument->EnumerateSubDocuments(FreezeSubDocument, nsnull); 7287 nsPresContext* presContext = GetPresContext(); 7288 if (presContext && 7289 presContext->RefreshDriver()->PresContext() == presContext) { 7290 presContext->RefreshDriver()->Freeze(); 7291 } 7292 7293 mFrozen = PR_TRUE; 7294 UpdateImageLockingState(); 9009 PresShell::UpdateImageLockingState() 9010 { 9011 // We're locked if we're both thawed and active. 9012 return mDocument->SetImageLockingState(!mFrozen && mIsActive); I think it's reasonable to assert that if mDocument were actually null, we'd have noticed crashes by now and that the null check is useless.
Comment 1•14 years ago
|
||
It really depends on the exact plugins running. I believe FreezeElement can tear down the world if the plugin is not well-behaved, so we do need a null-check in UpdateImageLockingState.
Summary: Either PresShell::Freeze uselessly null checks mDocument or crash [@ PresShell::UpdateImageLockingState] → Either PresShell::Freeze needs to consistently null check mDocument to avoid a crash [@ PresShell::UpdateImageLockingState]
Attachment #496383 -
Flags: review?(bzbarsky)
Attachment #496383 -
Flags: approval2.0?
Comment 3•14 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 496383 [details] [diff] [review] proposal per bz's comment Please add curlies around the if body.
Attachment #496383 -
Flags: review?(bzbarsky)
Attachment #496383 -
Flags: review+
Attachment #496383 -
Flags: approval2.0?
Attachment #496383 -
Flags: approval2.0+
bz: do you really want this instead?
Attachment #496465 -
Flags: review?(bzbarsky)
Attachment #496465 -
Flags: approval2.0?
Comment 5•14 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 496465 [details] [diff] [review] add curlies! Sure, but you already had r+... Why ask again?
Attachment #496465 -
Flags: review?(bzbarsky)
Attachment #496465 -
Flags: review+
Attachment #496465 -
Flags: approval2.0?
Attachment #496465 -
Flags: approval2.0+
because it was changing other parts of the function. i wanted to make sure you really wanted the full change.
Keywords: checkin-needed
Attachment #496383 -
Attachment is obsolete: true
Comment 7•14 years ago
|
||
http://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/2c7df2c32e3a
Status: ASSIGNED → RESOLVED
Closed: 14 years ago
Keywords: checkin-needed
Resolution: --- → FIXED
Target Milestone: --- → mozilla2.0b8
Updated•6 years ago
|
Blocks: coverity-analysis
You need to log in
before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description
•