Closed Bug 651177 Opened 9 years ago Closed 9 years ago
[Mac] Crashes [@ ns
Object Frame::Get Layer State ]
In the last week (since about the 13th) this crash has become the trunk and 2.0-branch topcrasher: https://crash-stats.mozilla.com/query/query?product=Firefox&version=Firefox%3A6.0a1&version=Firefox%3A5.0a2&range_value=2&range_unit=weeks&date=04%2F19%2F2011+10%3A04%3A22&query_search=signature&query_type=contains&query=nsObjectFrame%3A%3AGetLayerState&build_id=&process_type=any&hang_type=any&do_query=1 All these crashes are NULL-dereferences. They're caused by a mistake (basically a typo) in the patch for bug 617539. What should have been a NULL check in nsPluginInstanceOwner::IsRemoteDrawingCoreAnimation() has been turned into its opposite: This code was used if (mInstance) return PR_FALSE; where the following code should have been used if (!mInstance) return PR_FALSE; I'll post a patch shortly.
I've no idea why this bug happens only on OS X.
> I've no idea why this bug happens only on OS X. Actually, nsPluginInstanceOwner::IsRemoteDrawingCoreAnimation() is only ever called on OS X.
Assignee: nobody → smichaud
Attachment #527037 - Flags: review?(benjamin)
Comment on attachment 527037 [details] [diff] [review] Fix This cannot have been a 2.0 branch topcrasher, if it was caused by the other bug which only landed for Firefox 5. But we do need this on aurora.
Attachment #527037 - Flags: review?(benjamin) → review+
> This cannot have been a 2.0 branch topcrasher, if it was caused by the other > bug which only landed for Firefox 5. But we do need this on aurora. You're right. Sorry, I got my branches mixes up.
Comment on attachment 527037 [details] [diff] [review] Fix Landed on the trunk: http://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/28bcd72b4d92
Status: NEW → RESOLVED
Closed: 9 years ago
Resolution: --- → FIXED
So what happens next? I suspect this fix should be pushed to aurora before the next scheduled merge from mozilla-central. Should I request approval? Or should I just wait for others to deal with it?
Yes, you should request approval, as noted in the dev-planning threads.
> Yes, you should request approval, as noted in the dev-planning > threads. Thanks. I've read the thread at http://groups.google.com/group/mozilla.dev.planning/browse_thread/thread/61efaf6a258cbb4c#. But it was unclear to me who should initiate the approval process -- the developer (as has been the case up til now) or others. You've told me that developers should continue to have the primary responsibility for making approval requests.
Attachment #527037 - Flags: approval-mozilla-aurora?
Comment on attachment 527037 [details] [diff] [review] Fix approved for mozilla-aurora (from triage meeting)
Attachment #527037 - Flags: approval-mozilla-aurora? → approval-mozilla-aurora+
Comment on attachment 527037 [details] [diff] [review] Fix Landed on mozilla-aurora: http://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-aurora/rev/072e8fbd2867
This crash no longer shows in trunk crash data. On Aurora there are a few crashes with Build ID 20110420042005 but that build might not have picked up the fix.
Crash Signature: [@ nsObjectFrame::GetLayerState ]
You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.