This bug was filed from the Socorro interface and is report bp-4ac40ad9-c4a6-48c9-bd95-e26c00170919. ============================================================= 0 xul.dll mozilla::dom::workers::WorkerPrivateParent<mozilla::dom::workers::WorkerPrivate>::DispatchPrivate(already_AddRefed<mozilla::dom::workers::WorkerRunnable>, nsIEventTarget*) dom/workers/WorkerPrivate.cpp:2851 1 xul.dll mozilla::dom::workers::WorkerPrivateParent<mozilla::dom::workers::WorkerPrivate>::Dispatch(already_AddRefed<mozilla::dom::workers::WorkerRunnable>) obj-firefox/dist/include/mozilla/dom/WorkerPrivate.h:326 2 xul.dll mozilla::dom::workers::WorkerRunnable::DispatchInternal() dom/workers/WorkerRunnable.cpp:111 3 xul.dll mozilla::dom::workers::WorkerRunnable::Dispatch() dom/workers/WorkerRunnable.cpp:95 4 xul.dll mozilla::dom::`anonymous namespace'::ConsumeBodyDoneObserver<mozilla::dom::Response>::OnStreamComplete dom/fetch/Fetch.cpp:1012 5 xul.dll mozilla::net::nsStreamLoader::OnStopRequest(nsIRequest*, nsISupports*, nsresult) netwerk/base/nsStreamLoader.cpp:105 6 xul.dll nsInputStreamPump::OnStateStop() netwerk/base/nsInputStreamPump.cpp:734 7 xul.dll nsInputStreamPump::OnInputStreamReady(nsIAsyncInputStream*) netwerk/base/nsInputStreamPump.cpp:448 8 xul.dll nsInputStreamReadyEvent::Run() xpcom/io/nsStreamUtils.cpp:96 9 xul.dll mozilla::ThrottledEventQueue::Inner::ExecuteRunnable() xpcom/threads/ThrottledEventQueue.cpp:190 10 xul.dll mozilla::ThrottledEventQueue::Inner::Executor::Run() xpcom/threads/ThrottledEventQueue.cpp:74 11 xul.dll mozilla::ThrottledEventQueue::Inner::ExecuteRunnable() xpcom/threads/ThrottledEventQueue.cpp:190 12 xul.dll mozilla::ThrottledEventQueue::Inner::Executor::Run() xpcom/threads/ThrottledEventQueue.cpp:74 13 xul.dll nsThread::ProcessNextEvent(bool, bool*) xpcom/threads/nsThread.cpp:1418 This is spiking on 55.0.2 (Fennec) and 55.0.3 (desktop) in the last few days, with thousands of crashes. No crashes in 56.0bX, so maybe this is already fixed there? Filing just in case, because crash-stats correlations tab says: (67.77% in signature vs 00.54% overall) address = 0xffffffffe5e5e615

Yes, this has been fixed by bug 1371889.

OK, thanks.