Closed
Bug 811058
Opened 12 years ago
Closed 12 years ago
IonMonkey: Add incremental barriers to addprop ICs
Categories
(Core :: JavaScript Engine, defect)
Core
JavaScript Engine
Tracking
()
RESOLVED
FIXED
mozilla20
Tracking | Status | |
---|---|---|
firefox17 | --- | unaffected |
firefox18 | + | fixed |
firefox19 | + | fixed |
firefox20 | --- | fixed |
firefox-esr10 | --- | unaffected |
firefox-esr17 | --- | unaffected |
People
(Reporter: dvander, Assigned: dvander)
References
Details
(Keywords: csectype-uaf, regression, sec-high, Whiteboard: [adv-main18-])
Attachments
(1 file, 1 obsolete file)
14.36 KB,
patch
|
billm
:
review+
lsblakk
:
approval-mozilla-aurora+
lsblakk
:
approval-mozilla-beta+
dveditz
:
sec-approval+
|
Details | Diff | Splinter Review |
IonMonkey can overwrite shape values (via addprop ICs) without invoking a GC barrier.
Assignee | ||
Comment 1•12 years ago
|
||
Attachment #680754 -
Flags: review?(wmccloskey)
Comment 2•12 years ago
|
||
Sounds memory-corruption-y. Feel free to downgrade as necessary. Marking for tracking because there's a patch.
status-firefox-esr10:
--- → unaffected
status-firefox17:
--- → unaffected
status-firefox18:
--- → affected
status-firefox19:
--- → affected
tracking-firefox18:
--- → ?
tracking-firefox19:
--- → ?
Keywords: sec-critical
Assignee | ||
Comment 3•12 years ago
|
||
actually valid patch
Attachment #680754 -
Attachment is obsolete: true
Attachment #680754 -
Flags: review?(wmccloskey)
Attachment #680815 -
Flags: review?(wmccloskey)
Attachment #680815 -
Flags: review?(wmccloskey) → review+
Assignee | ||
Comment 4•12 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 680815 [details] [diff] [review] v2 [Security approval request comment] How easily can the security issue be deduced from the patch? Not easily. Do comments in the patch, the check-in comment, or tests included in the patch paint a bulls-eye on the security problem? No. Which older supported branches are affected by this flaw? Firefox 18. If not all supported branches, which bug introduced the flaw? IonMonkey. Do you have backports for the affected branches? If not, how different, hard to create, and risky will they be? This patch should apply to Firefox 18. How likely is this patch to cause regressions; how much testing does it need? Very little.
Attachment #680815 -
Flags: sec-approval?
Updated•12 years ago
|
Updated•12 years ago
|
Keywords: regression
Updated•12 years ago
|
Blocks: LandIon
Keywords: sec-critical → sec-high
Comment 5•12 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 680815 [details] [diff] [review] v2 sec-approval+
Attachment #680815 -
Flags: sec-approval? → sec-approval+
Assignee | ||
Comment 6•12 years ago
|
||
https://hg.mozilla.org/integration/mozilla-inbound/rev/6bc3cd4a52ec
Comment 7•12 years ago
|
||
https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/6bc3cd4a52ec
Status: ASSIGNED → RESOLVED
Closed: 12 years ago
status-firefox20:
--- → fixed
Resolution: --- → FIXED
Target Milestone: --- → mozilla20
Comment 9•12 years ago
|
||
Is this ready to be landed on 18 and 19?
Assignee | ||
Comment 10•12 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 680815 [details] [diff] [review] v2 [Approval Request Comment] Bug caused by (feature/regressing bug #): IonMonkey User impact if declined: Potential security-critical bug Testing completed (on m-c, etc.): Yes Risk to taking this patch (and alternatives if risky): Very little String or UUID changes made by this patch:
Attachment #680815 -
Flags: approval-mozilla-beta?
Attachment #680815 -
Flags: approval-mozilla-aurora?
Updated•12 years ago
|
Attachment #680815 -
Flags: approval-mozilla-beta?
Attachment #680815 -
Flags: approval-mozilla-beta+
Attachment #680815 -
Flags: approval-mozilla-aurora?
Attachment #680815 -
Flags: approval-mozilla-aurora+
Comment 11•12 years ago
|
||
https://hg.mozilla.org/releases/mozilla-aurora/rev/d84d3184ed07 This didn't apply to beta, so I didn't push it there.
Assignee | ||
Comment 12•12 years ago
|
||
https://hg.mozilla.org/releases/mozilla-beta/rev/70d6b6426802
Updated•12 years ago
|
Whiteboard: [adv-main18-]
Updated•11 years ago
|
Group: core-security
You need to log in
before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description
•