Closed
Bug 735943
Opened 12 years ago
Closed 12 years ago
Crash @ nsCSSFrameConstructor::ProcessPendingRestyles
Categories
(Core :: Layout, defect)
Core
Layout
Tracking
()
VERIFIED
FIXED
mozilla14
People
(Reporter: jruderman, Assigned: MatsPalmgren_bugz)
References
Details
(Keywords: crash, testcase, Whiteboard: [sg:critical][qa!])
Crash Data
Attachments
(6 files)
1.15 KB,
text/html
|
Details | |
9.40 KB,
text/plain
|
Details | |
3.28 KB,
text/plain
|
Details | |
6.56 KB,
text/html
|
Details | |
4.19 KB,
patch
|
bzbarsky
:
review+
akeybl
:
approval-mozilla-aurora+
akeybl
:
approval-mozilla-beta+
|
Details | Diff | Splinter Review |
3.33 KB,
patch
|
lsblakk
:
approval-mozilla-esr10+
|
Details | Diff | Splinter Review |
About 50% of the time, this testcase causes a crash in nsCSSFrameConstructor::ProcessPendingRestyles.
Reporter | ||
Comment 1•12 years ago
|
||
Reporter | ||
Comment 2•12 years ago
|
||
Assignee | ||
Updated•12 years ago
|
Assignee: nobody → matspal
Component: DOM: Core & HTML → Layout
OS: Mac OS X → All
QA Contact: general → layout
Hardware: x86_64 → All
Assignee | ||
Comment 3•12 years ago
|
||
Assignee | ||
Comment 4•12 years ago
|
||
FYI, the document has a strong pointer to the nsSMILAnimationController object, which keeps a raw pointer to it (mDocument). Try results pending: https://tbpl.mozilla.org/?usebuildbot=1&tree=Try&rev=0281d2f4f580 Filed bug 735966 on the assertion when running the crash test.
Attachment #606076 -
Flags: review?(bzbarsky)
Assignee | ||
Comment 5•12 years ago
|
||
Again, with just this change this time (there's a jsreftest crash in the one above): https://tbpl.mozilla.org/?usebuildbot=1&tree=Try&rev=8316f137ca46
Reporter | ||
Comment 6•12 years ago
|
||
My testcase (reduced from what the fuzzer created) is an insane tangle of setTimeouts. It might be possible to create a more robust regression test ;)
Comment 7•12 years ago
|
||
I hit bp-d0df45dc-63db-44d8-a6d8-f76722120315 (popups blocked) and bp-3d521fe3-cc02-44fc-8058-d85972120315 (popups allowed).
Crash Signature: [@ nsCSSFrameConstructor::ProcessPendingRestyles()]
[@ nsCSSFrameConstructor::ProcessPendingRestyles]
[@ PresShell::FlushPendingNotifications(mozFlushType)]
Summary: Crash [@ nsCSSFrameConstructor::ProcessPendingRestyles] → Crash @ nsCSSFrameConstructor::ProcessPendingRestyles
Assignee | ||
Comment 8•12 years ago
|
||
Hmm, there's a couple of "ASSERTION: This is unsafe! Fix the caller!: 'Error', content/events/src/nsEventDispatcher.cpp, line 558" on the new crash test. https://tbpl.mozilla.org/php/getParsedLog.php?id=10090225&tree=Try&full=1#error0
![]() |
||
Comment 9•12 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 606076 [details] [diff] [review] fix+test Document (probably in the header and at the presshell check for mIsDestroying) that FlushResampleRequests can trigger style flushes, and r=me
Attachment #606076 -
Flags: review?(bzbarsky) → review+
Assignee | ||
Comment 10•12 years ago
|
||
https://hg.mozilla.org/integration/mozilla-inbound/rev/75f461e05221
Flags: in-testsuite+
Assignee | ||
Comment 11•12 years ago
|
||
This crash fix seems worth taking on branches after baking it for a while...
Comment 12•12 years ago
|
||
https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/75f461e05221
Status: NEW → RESOLVED
Closed: 12 years ago
Resolution: --- → FIXED
Comment 13•12 years ago
|
||
(In reply to Mats Palmgren [:mats] from comment #11) > This crash fix seems worth taking on branches after baking it for a while... Do we know what the regressing bug is or whether this is a pain point for users? If not, this can ride the trains.
Assignee | ||
Comment 14•12 years ago
|
||
I would guess the addition of the FlushResampleRequests() call in http://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/d6dbb4231c11 is what caused the regression (bug 547333). The reason I recommend merging this fix to branches is that without it we run script from inside a destroyed pres shell, which I think is unsafe. The fix is very low-risk.
Assignee | ||
Comment 15•12 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 606076 [details] [diff] [review] fix+test See comment 14.
Attachment #606076 -
Flags: approval-mozilla-beta?
Attachment #606076 -
Flags: approval-mozilla-aurora?
Updated•12 years ago
|
Group: core-security
status1.9.2:
--- → unaffected
status-firefox-esr10:
--- → affected
status-firefox12:
--- → affected
status-firefox13:
--- → affected
status-firefox14:
--- → fixed
tracking-firefox-esr10:
--- → ?
Whiteboard: [sg:critical]
Updated•12 years ago
|
Comment 17•12 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 606076 [details] [diff] [review] fix+test [Triage Comment] Low risk fix, and both Mats and the security team agree that this is something we should fix all the way up to FF12. Please land asap, as we'll go to build with Beta 4 tomorrow (4/3) at 5PM PT. Please make sure to prepare a patch for the ESR branch as well.
Attachment #606076 -
Flags: approval-mozilla-beta?
Attachment #606076 -
Flags: approval-mozilla-beta+
Attachment #606076 -
Flags: approval-mozilla-aurora?
Attachment #606076 -
Flags: approval-mozilla-aurora+
Assignee | ||
Comment 18•12 years ago
|
||
The fix applies also to esr10, but without the test since the pref() reftest feature doesn't exist there, afaict.
Attachment #611648 -
Flags: approval-mozilla-esr10?
Comment 19•12 years ago
|
||
Verified fixed in nightly Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:14.0) Gecko/20120402 Firefox/14.0a1. The testcase pretty reliably crashes my Aurora build.
Status: RESOLVED → VERIFIED
Assignee | ||
Comment 20•12 years ago
|
||
https://hg.mozilla.org/releases/mozilla-aurora/rev/18753a4ee7cd https://hg.mozilla.org/releases/mozilla-beta/rev/a958bd24a213
Comment 21•12 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 611648 [details] [diff] [review] for esr10 Thanks, please go ahead and land as per https://wiki.mozilla.org/Release_Management/ESR_Landing_Process
Attachment #611648 -
Flags: approval-mozilla-esr10? → approval-mozilla-esr10+
Assignee | ||
Comment 22•12 years ago
|
||
https://hg.mozilla.org/releases/mozilla-esr10/rev/f66c6b1c5ee6
Updated•12 years ago
|
Updated•12 years ago
|
Updated•12 years ago
|
Updated•12 years ago
|
Whiteboard: [sg:critical][qa+] → [sg:critical][qa!]
Updated•12 years ago
|
Group: core-security
You need to log in
before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description
•