Closed Bug 763162 Opened 13 years ago Closed 13 years ago

crash in nsXULMenuitemAccessible::NativeInteractiveState @ nsMenuFrame::IsOnMenuBar

Categories

(Core :: Disability Access APIs, defect)

15 Branch
defect
Not set
critical

Tracking

()

RESOLVED FIXED
mozilla16
Tracking Status
firefox15 + verified

People

(Reporter: scoobidiver, Assigned: tbsaunde)

References

Details

(Keywords: crash, regression)

Crash Data

Attachments

(1 file)

It first appeared in 16.0a1/20120605 and 15.0a2/20120608. The regression range is: http://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/pushloghtml?fromchange=dd6ec482a85d&tochange=a7a905fd70d5 It's likely a regression from bug 756983. Signature nsMenuFrame::IsOnMenuBar() More Reports Search UUID abf38ffb-009a-4414-92b5-f22e82120609 Date Processed 2012-06-09 07:33:34 Uptime 824 Last Crash 14.7 minutes before submission Install Age 3.1 hours since version was first installed. Install Time 2012-06-09 04:28:35 Product Firefox Version 16.0a1 Build ID 20120608081921 Release Channel nightly OS Windows NT OS Version 6.1.7600 Build Architecture x86 Build Architecture Info GenuineIntel family 6 model 23 stepping 10 Crash Reason EXCEPTION_ACCESS_VIOLATION_READ Crash Address 0x80 App Notes AdapterVendorID: 0x10de, AdapterDeviceID: 0x0a23, AdapterSubsysID: 34f21458, AdapterDriverVersion: 8.17.11.9646 D3D10 Layers? D3D10 Layers- D3D9 Layers? D3D9 Layers- EMCheckCompatibility True Total Virtual Memory 2147352576 Available Virtual Memory 1694928896 System Memory Use Percentage 78 Available Page File 2474278912 Available Physical Memory 456781824 Frame Module Signature Source 0 xul.dll nsMenuFrame::IsOnMenuBar layout/xul/base/src/nsMenuFrame.h:168 1 xul.dll nsXULMenuitemAccessible::NativeInteractiveState accessible/src/xul/nsXULMenuAccessible.cpp:123 2 xul.dll Accessible::NativeState accessible/src/generic/Accessible.cpp:665 3 xul.dll nsXULMenuitemAccessible::NativeState accessible/src/xul/nsXULMenuAccessible.cpp:50 4 xul.dll nsXULMenuSeparatorAccessible::NativeState accessible/src/xul/nsXULMenuAccessible.cpp:385 5 xul.dll Accessible::State accessible/src/generic/Accessible.cpp:1512 6 xul.dll AccessibleWrap::get_accState accessible/src/msaa/AccessibleWrap.cpp:443 7 rpcrt4.dll Invoke 8 rpcrt4.dll NdrStubCall2 9 ole32.dll ChannelWrapper_QueryInterface 10 oleaut32.dll CUnivStubWrapper::Invoke 11 ole32.dll SyncStubInvoke 12 ole32.dll StubInvoke 13 ole32.dll CCtxComChnl::ContextInvoke 14 ole32.dll MTAInvoke 15 ole32.dll STAInvoke 16 ole32.dll AppInvoke 17 ole32.dll ComInvokeWithLockAndIPID 18 ole32.dll ComInvoke 19 ole32.dll ThreadDispatch 20 ole32.dll ThreadWndProc 21 user32.dll InternalCallWinProc 22 user32.dll UserCallWinProcCheckWow 23 user32.dll DispatchMessageWorker 24 user32.dll DispatchMessageW 25 xul.dll nsAppShell::ProcessNextNativeEvent widget/windows/nsAppShell.cpp:322 26 nspr4.dll nspr4.dll@0x28df 27 xul.dll nsBaseAppShell::OnProcessNextEvent widget/xpwidgets/nsBaseAppShell.cpp:298 28 xul.dll nsThread::ProcessNextEvent xpcom/threads/nsThread.cpp:586 ... More reports at: https://crash-stats.mozilla.com/report/list?signature=nsMenuFrame%3A%3AIsOnMenuBar%28%29 https://crash-stats.mozilla.com/report/list?signature=nsXULMenuitemAccessible%3A%3ANativeInteractiveState
Mark, would you like to take this? simple null check
Assignee: nobody → markcapella
Status: NEW → ASSIGNED
Attached patch Patch (v1)Splinter Review
This builds and tests ok locally (No regressions) ... if it passes review do you want me to push to try first like I always do?
Attachment #631645 - Flags: review?(surkov.alexander)
Comment on attachment 631645 [details] [diff] [review] Patch (v1) Review of attachment 631645 [details] [diff] [review]: ----------------------------------------------------------------- thank you, r=me ::: accessible/src/xul/XULMenuAccessible.cpp @@ +119,5 @@ > if (NativelyUnavailable()) { > // Note: keep in sinc with nsXULPopupManager::IsValidMenuItem() logic. > bool skipNavigatingDisabledMenuItem = true; > nsMenuFrame* menuFrame = do_QueryFrame(GetFrame()); > + if (!menuFrame || !menuFrame->IsOnMenuBar()) { if (menuFrame && !menuFrame->IsOnMenuBar()) is more correct since in this case you don't expose focusable | selectable states.
Attachment #631645 - Flags: review?(surkov.alexander) → review+
(In reply to Mark Capella [:capella] from comment #2) > Created attachment 631645 [details] [diff] [review] > Patch (v1) > > This builds and tests ok locally (No regressions) ... if it passes review do > you want me to push to try first like I always do? up to you (try server build is optional thing)
Status: ASSIGNED → RESOLVED
Closed: 13 years ago
Flags: in-testsuite-
Resolution: --- → FIXED
This has exploded to #12 in yesterday's data.
(In reply to Robert Kaiser (:kairo@mozilla.com) from comment #7) > This has exploded to #12 in yesterday's data. There's a pully user that is responsible of 47% of these crashes.
(In reply to Scoobidiver from comment #8) > (In reply to Robert Kaiser (:kairo@mozilla.com) from comment #7) > > This has exploded to #12 in yesterday's data. > There's a pully user that is responsible of 47% of these crashes. Regardless, since this is just a null check, let's take the low risk fix and play it safe. Mark - can you nominate for Aurora 15 approval? Thanks!
I spoke with tbsaunde today. He is handling this for the a11y team. fwiw, I mentioned that it looks like the patch I originally pushed didn't include a last minute change as directed by comment # 3, and simply promoting it may help but not be the complete solution here. >> + if (!menuFrame || !menuFrame->IsOnMenuBar()) { >if (menuFrame && !menuFrame->IsOnMenuBar()) is more correct So for now I'll defer to him on what he wants to do next.
Assignee: markcapella → trev.saunders
Should this be reopened as well?
Comment on attachment 631645 [details] [diff] [review] Patch (v1) [Approval Request Comment] Bug caused by (feature/regressing bug #): User impact if declined: crashes Testing completed (on m-c, etc.): yes Risk to taking this patch (and alternatives if risky): just null check String or UUID changes made by this patch: no
Attachment #631645 - Flags: approval-mozilla-beta?
(In reply to Alex Keybl [:akeybl] from comment #11) > Should this be reopened as well? no, we should just take the patch, backporting if needed (but I doubt it is). I thought we'd already asked for approval :(
(In reply to Trevor Saunders (:tbsaunde) from comment #13) > (In reply to Alex Keybl [:akeybl] from comment #11) > > Should this be reopened as well? > > no, we should just take the patch, backporting if needed (but I doubt it is). > > I thought we'd already asked for approval :( Any concerns around "simply promoting it may help but not be the complete solution here" in comment 10?
(In reply to Alex Keybl [:akeybl] from comment #14) > (In reply to Trevor Saunders (:tbsaunde) from comment #13) > > (In reply to Alex Keybl [:akeybl] from comment #11) > > > Should this be reopened as well? > > > > no, we should just take the patch, backporting if needed (but I doubt it is). > > > > I thought we'd already asked for approval :( > > Any concerns around "simply promoting it may help but not be the complete > solution here" in comment 10? well, ideally comment 3 would be addressed since we'd be a little more correct in an odd case, but other than that no.
Comment on attachment 631645 [details] [diff] [review] Patch (v1) low risk null check, let's get this in.
Attachment #631645 - Flags: approval-mozilla-beta? → approval-mozilla-beta+
You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.

Attachment

General

Created:
Updated:
Size: