Assertion failure: JSID_IS_ATOM(id) && frontend::IsIdentifierNameOrPrivateName(JSID_TO_ATOM(id)), at js/src/vm/StringType.cpp:2216
Categories
(Core :: JavaScript Engine, defect, P1)
Tracking
()
Tracking | Status | |
---|---|---|
firefox-esr60 | --- | unaffected |
firefox67 | --- | unaffected |
firefox68 | --- | wontfix |
firefox69 | --- | fixed |
People
(Reporter: decoder, Assigned: khyperia)
References
(Regression)
Details
(4 keywords, Whiteboard: [jsbugmon:update])
Attachments
(1 file)
(deleted),
text/x-phabricator-request
|
Details |
The following testcase crashes on mozilla-central revision 0ec836eceb96 (build with --enable-posix-nspr-emulation --enable-valgrind --enable-gczeal --disable-tests --disable-profiling --enable-debug --enable-optimize, run with --fuzzing-safe --cpu-count=2):
class foo extends null {
constructor(a = class bar extends bar {}) {}
}
new foo();
Backtrace:
received signal SIGSEGV, Segmentation fault.
#0 js::IdToPrintableUTF8 (cx=<optimized out>, cx@entry=0x7ffff5f19000, id=id@entry=..., behavior=behavior@entry=js::IdToPrintableBehavior::IdIsIdentifier) at js/src/vm/StringType.cpp:2214
#1 0x00005555558d0726 in js::ReportRuntimeLexicalError (id=..., errorNumber=79, cx=0x7ffff5f19000) at js/src/vm/Interpreter.cpp:5304
#2 js::ReportRuntimeLexicalError (cx=<optimized out>, cx@entry=0x7ffff5f19000, errorNumber=errorNumber@entry=79, name=..., name@entry=...) at js/src/vm/Interpreter.cpp:5313
#3 0x00005555558d3dbb in js::ReportRuntimeLexicalError (cx=0x7ffff5f19000, errorNumber=79, script=..., pc=0x7ffff5ffb6a3 "\212\002") at js/src/vm/Interpreter.cpp:5336
#4 0x00005555558e5655 in js::ReportUninitializedLexical (pc=<optimized out>, script=..., cx=<optimized out>) at js/src/vm/Interpreter-inl.h:109
#5 js::CheckUninitializedLexical (val=..., pc=<optimized out>, script=..., cx=<optimized out>) at js/src/vm/Interpreter-inl.h:125
#6 Interpret (cx=0x7ffff5f19000, state=...) at js/src/vm/Interpreter.cpp:3445
#7 0x00005555558e8716 in js::RunScript (cx=0x7ffff5f19000, state=...) at js/src/vm/Interpreter.cpp:423
[...]
#16 main (argc=<optimized out>, argv=<optimized out>, envp=<optimized out>) at js/src/shell/js.cpp:11373
rax 0x555557c90360 93825033372512
rbx 0x7fffffffc7a0 140737488340896
rcx 0x555556bc6880 93825015769216
rdx 0x0 0
rsi 0x7ffff6eeb770 140737336227696
rdi 0x7ffff6eea540 140737336223040
rbp 0x7fffffffc760 140737488340832
rsp 0x7fffffffc700 140737488340736
r8 0x7ffff6eeb770 140737336227696
r9 0x7ffff7fe6cc0 140737354034368
r10 0x58 88
r11 0x7ffff6b927a0 140737332717472
r12 0x0 0
r13 0x7fffffffc788 140737488340872
r14 0x7ffff5f19000 140737319636992
r15 0x7fffffffca80 140737488341632
rip 0x555555cbb5e1 <js::IdToPrintableUTF8(JSContext*, JS::Handle<JS::PropertyKey>, js::IdToPrintableBehavior)+465>
=> 0x555555cbb5e1 <js::IdToPrintableUTF8(JSContext*, JS::Handle<JS::PropertyKey>, js::IdToPrintableBehavior)+465>: movl $0x0,0x0
0x555555cbb5ec <js::IdToPrintableUTF8(JSContext*, JS::Handle<JS::PropertyKey>, js::IdToPrintableBehavior)+476>: ud2
Updated•6 years ago
|
Comment 1•6 years ago
|
||
Ashley, is bug 1542448 a likely regressor?
Assignee | ||
Comment 3•6 years ago
|
||
Assignee | ||
Updated•6 years ago
|
Updated•6 years ago
|
Assignee | ||
Updated•6 years ago
|
Comment 4•6 years ago
|
||
Backed out 2 changesets (bug 1552229, bug 1547467) for causing build bustages. CLOSED TREE
Log:
https://treeherder.mozilla.org/logviewer.html#/jobs?job_id=247422001&repo=autoland&lineNumber=708
Push with failures:
https://treeherder.mozilla.org/#/jobs?repo=autoland&selectedJob=247422857&revision=a8f5dec91d72d4032ced008f847ead37f350193f
Backout:
https://hg.mozilla.org/integration/autoland/rev/b702646a08e392ca61867731e4c2cac0160a9c38
Assignee | ||
Updated•6 years ago
|
Comment 7•6 years ago
|
||
bugherder |
Updated•5 years ago
|
Assignee | ||
Comment 9•5 years ago
|
||
I don't know - punting to sdetar for that question.
However, if you do take this, you should also take the bugs that were caused by this (bug 1553744 then bug 1555979).
Comment 10•5 years ago
|
||
Talking with Ashley about this, I would currently considering not recommending uplifting this Fx68 unless there is significant reason to do so as there seems to be some risks in doing so. These risks come from this is a complex problem to fix as well as a number of other dependent patches will also have to be uplifted. It does not seem like a simple uplift.
Jason, do you have any thoughts on that?
Comment 11•5 years ago
|
||
I agree: don't uplift. The feature is behind a pref.
Updated•5 years ago
|
Updated•3 years ago
|
Description
•