Closed Bug 689366 Opened 14 years ago Closed 14 years ago

Crash [@ mozilla::layout::RenderFrameParent::GetLayerManager]

Categories

(Core :: Web Painting, defect)

8 Branch
ARM
Android
defect
Not set
critical

Tracking

()

RESOLVED FIXED
mozilla10
Tracking Status
firefox9 --- fixed

People

(Reporter: nhirata, Assigned: cjones)

Details

(Keywords: crash, Whiteboard: [mobile-crash] [inbound])

Crash Data

Attachments

(1 file)

This bug was filed from the Socorro interface and is report bp-6ebf49e2-2163-449e-89a7-a2d832110920 . ============================================================= Frame Module Signature [Expand] Source 0 libxul.so mozilla::layout::RenderFrameParent::GetLayerManager nsIDocument.h:485 1 libxul.so mozilla::layout::RenderFrameParent::AllocPLayers layout/ipc/RenderFrameParent.cpp:720 2 libxul.so mozilla::layout::PRenderFrameParent::OnMessageReceived obj-firefox/ipc/ipdl/PRenderFrameParent.cpp:105 3 libxul.so mozilla::dom::PContentParent::OnMessageReceived obj-firefox/ipc/ipdl/PContentParent.cpp:689 4 libxul.so mozilla::ipc::AsyncChannel::OnDispatchMessage ipc/glue/AsyncChannel.cpp:294 5 libxul.so mozilla::ipc::RPCChannel::OnMaybeDequeueOne ipc/glue/RPCChannel.cpp:435 6 libxul.so RunnableMethod<mozilla::ipc::RPCChannel, bool , Tuple0>::Run ipc/chromium/src/base/task.h:308 7 libxul.so mozilla::ipc::RPCChannel::DequeueTask::Run RPCChannel.h:487 8 libxul.so MessageLoop::RunTask ipc/chromium/src/base/message_loop.cc:343 9 libxul.so MessageLoop::DeferOrRunPendingTask ipc/chromium/src/base/message_loop.cc:353 10 libxul.so MessageLoop::DoWork ipc/chromium/src/base/message_loop.cc:450 11 libxul.so mozilla::ipc::MessagePump::Run ipc/glue/MessagePump.cpp:115 12 libxul.so MessageLoop::RunInternal ipc/chromium/src/base/message_loop.cc:219 13 libxul.so MessageLoop::Run ipc/chromium/src/base/message_loop.cc:511 14 libxul.so nsBaseAppShell::Run widget/src/xpwidgets/nsBaseAppShell.cpp:191 15 libxul.so nsAppStartup::Run toolkit/components/startup/nsAppStartup.cpp:223 16 libxul.so XRE_main toolkit/xre/nsAppRunner.cpp:3572 17 libxul.so Java_org_mozilla_gecko_GeckoAppShell_nativeRun toolkit/xre/nsAndroidStartup.cpp:132 18 libmozutils.so Java_org_mozilla_gecko_GeckoAppShell_nativeRun other-licenses/android/APKOpen.cpp:234 19 libdvm.so libdvm.so@0x17037 20 dalvik-LinearAlloc (deleted) dalvik-LinearAlloc @0x22b6d3 21 2 (deleted) 2 @0x111d2f 22 libdvm.so libdvm.so@0x171ff 23 libdvm.so libdvm.so@0x45786 24 mnt@asec@org.mozilla.firefox_beta-1@pkg.apk@classes.dex mnt@asec@org.mozilla.firefox_beta-1@pkg.apk@classes.dex@0x10169 25 libmozutils.so Java_org_mozilla_gecko_GeckoAppShell_nativeRun other-licenses/android/APKOpen.cpp:234 26 dalvik-LinearAlloc (deleted) dalvik-LinearAlloc @0x22b6d3 27 dalvik-LinearAlloc (deleted) dalvik-LinearAlloc @0x22b6d3 28 libdvm.so libdvm.so@0xa3447 29 2 (deleted) 2 @0x111d2f 30 libmozutils.so Java_org_mozilla_gecko_GeckoAppShell_nativeRun other-licenses/android/APKOpen.cpp:234 31 libdvm.so libdvm.so@0x4aed0 32 core.odex core.odex@0xe616f 33 mnt@asec@org.mozilla.firefox_beta-1@pkg.apk@classes.dex mnt@asec@org.mozilla.firefox_beta-1@pkg.apk@classes.dex@0x9ead 34 2 (deleted) 2 @0x111d2f 35 libdvm.so libdvm.so@0x1bfa3 36 libdvm.so libdvm.so@0xa3333 37 libdvm.so libdvm.so@0xa7f4f 38 libdvm.so libdvm.so@0x22c07 39 libdvm.so libdvm.so@0x22b87 40 libdvm.so libdvm.so@0x21aa3 41 core.odex core.odex@0xe4ffb 42 2 (deleted) 2 @0x163497 43 dalvik-LinearAlloc (deleted) dalvik-LinearAlloc @0x22ba7b 44 libdvm.so libdvm.so@0x1bce7 45 libdvm.so libdvm.so@0x1bd27 46 libdvm.so libdvm.so@0x1bc07 47 libdvm.so libdvm.so@0x1bc2f 48 libdvm.so libdvm.so@0x1bc5f 49 libdvm.so libdvm.so@0x1bc83 50 libdvm.so libdvm.so@0x7c0cc 51 core.odex core.odex@0x147139 52 core.odex core.odex@0x147139 53 core.odex core.odex@0x147187 More Crashes : https://crash-stats.mozilla.com/report/list?range_value=7&range_unit=days&date=2011-09-25&signature=mozilla%3A%3Alayout%3A%3ARenderFrameParent%3A%3AGetLayerManager&version=Fennec%3A7.0b5 See Bug 603680; seems to be the same crash?
Have you found a testcase or STR? This looks like a null deref LayerManager* RenderFrameParent::GetLayerManager() const { nsIDocument* doc = mFrameLoader->GetOwnerDoc(); return doc->GetShell()->GetLayerManager(); <==== HERE } of null |doc|. bz, is a document-less frame loader a state we need to check for here?
nsFrameLoader::GetOwnerDoc looks like this: 248 { return mOwnerContent ? mOwnerContent->GetOwnerDoc() : nsnull; } At this point GetOwnerDoc never returns null except in the middle of the document and element being cycle collected. But mOwnerContent can absolutel go away if someone is holding a strong ref to the frameloader and the element gets GCed. Note that if that happens there will be a destroy() call on the frameloader. Can a RenderFrameParent still be running after a destroy() on its mFrameLoader? If so, it should probably have checks for the frameloader being already destroyed.
Yes, it looks like what could be happening is - nsFrameLoader::Destroy() is called, which calls TabParent::Destroy() - TabParent::Destroy() starts the destruction process, and calls RenderFrameParent::Destroy() for all live frames - RenderFrameParent::Destroy() kicks off its own destruction process, and ... ... doesn't record that the mFrameLoader was destroyed! So it looks like if we try to create a new layer tree in the content process after nsFrameLoader::Destroy(), we could tickle this bug. (If there's already a layer created but a paint comes in after nsFrameLoader::Destroy(), which is common, then nothing bad happens.) That situation could arise if a tab is opened then closed really fast, but it would be a totally unreliable test. I think I know how to patch this.
Assignee: nobody → jones.chris.g
Comment on attachment 562670 [details] [diff] [review] Don't ask our frame loader for its layer manager after Destroy() r=me
Attachment #562670 - Flags: review?(bzbarsky) → review+
Status: NEW → RESOLVED
Closed: 14 years ago
Resolution: --- → FIXED
Target Milestone: --- → mozilla10
Can we have this pushed to Aurora please? This crasher also happens in Aurora.
What's the process for landing upstream now? Do we have to request approval somewhere?
cjones, apparantly one would "set the approval aurora flag on the patch attachment , and make a comment about why it's important. The release team evaluates those several times a week. If you think it's valuable to advocate for it in person, you can come to one of the meetings on Tuesday and Thursday at 2pm or talk ahead of time with someone who attends those meetings. " This was from Asa. I don't have the rights to set an approval aurora flag on the patch attachment. Can you do this please?
Comment on attachment 562670 [details] [diff] [review] Don't ask our frame loader for its layer manager after Destroy() Requesting aurora approval. This is a safe patch to make sure that we're not trying to operate on already-destroyed frame managers.
Attachment #562670 - Flags: approval-mozilla-aurora?
Comment on attachment 562670 [details] [diff] [review] Don't ask our frame loader for its layer manager after Destroy() Approved for releases/mozilla-aurora
Attachment #562670 - Flags: approval-mozilla-aurora? → approval-mozilla-aurora+
Chris, you going to push this to aurora, or want me to?
Do you have anything else to ride along with it? I should have time this evening, but I don't have an aurora clone yet. If you're ready to fire away, please feel free! :)
Component: Layout: View Rendering → Layout: Web Painting
You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.

Attachment

General

Created:
Updated:
Size: