Closed Bug 383129 Opened 17 years ago Closed 17 years ago

[FIX]Crash [@ nsContentUtils::ContentIsDescendantOf] with counters, mathml and treerow

Categories

(Core :: Layout, defect)

x86
Windows XP
defect
Not set
critical

Tracking

()

VERIFIED FIXED
mozilla1.9alpha8

People

(Reporter: martijn.martijn, Assigned: roc)

References

Details

(4 keywords, Whiteboard: [sg:low?] null-deref, possible memory manglement if it doesn't crash)

Crash Data

Attachments

(2 files, 1 obsolete file)

Attached file testcase (deleted) —
See testcase, which crashes Mozilla within 200ms after load. It also crashes branch builds, so marking security sensitive for now. Talkback ID: TB32819385Z nsContentUtils::ContentIsDescendantOf [mozilla/content/base/src/nscontentutils.cpp, line 1149] nsCounterList::RecalcAll [mozilla/layout/base/nscountermanager.cpp, line 176] RecalcDirtyLists [mozilla/layout/base/nscountermanager.cpp, line 274] nsBaseHashtable<nsStringHashKey,nsCOMPtr<nsIVariant>,nsIVariant *>::EnumerateRead [mozilla/dist/include/xpcom/nsbasehashtable.h, line 188] nsCounterManager::RecalcAll [mozilla/layout/base/nscountermanager.cpp, line 281] mozAutoDocUpdate::~mozAutoDocUpdate [mozilla/dist/include/content/nsidocument.h, line 986] nsGenericElement::RemoveChildAt [mozilla/content/base/src/nsgenericelement.cpp, line 2628] nsGenericElement::doRemoveChild [mozilla/content/base/src/nsgenericelement.cpp, line 3242] nsGenericElement::RemoveChild [mozilla/content/base/src/nsgenericelement.cpp, line 2812] XPCWrappedNative::CallMethod [mozilla/js/src/xpconnect/src/xpcwrappednative.cpp, line 2229]
Does the treerow element have to be root for this crash, or does it still crash if you wrap it all in a window?
Bug 384728 has a similar stack trace, but involves <svg:use> instead of mathml and trees.
Attached patch Proposed fix (obsolete) (deleted) — Splinter Review
We're failing to remove frames here when removing a content node. I think we probably want this fix on branches too...
Assignee: nobody → bzbarsky
Status: NEW → ASSIGNED
Attachment #268727 - Flags: superreview?(roc)
Attachment #268727 - Flags: review?(roc)
Attachment #268727 - Flags: approval1.8.1.5?
Attachment #268727 - Flags: approval1.8.0.13?
Note that I doubt the mathml matters that much, by the way.
Flags: in-testsuite?
Summary: Crash [@ nsContentUtils::ContentIsDescendantOf] with counters, mathml and treerow → [FIX]Crash [@ nsContentUtils::ContentIsDescendantOf] with counters, mathml and treerow
Target Milestone: --- → mozilla1.9alpha6
Wouldn't it be more robust here to check the container's frame type? Or something like that?
The point is that some of these containers just never have frames... I guess we could check that too.
And I'm a little worried about performance impact of GetPrimaryFrameFor() calls in this code if we do serious population of listboxes.
Given that we'd be getting the same primary frame over and over again, wouldn't that be reasonably fast?
Whiteboard: needs r/sr=roc
Flags: blocking1.8.1.5?
Flags: blocking1.8.0.13?
This testcase looks like a null deref in 2.0.0.4 (debug), is this an exploitable situation?
Flags: wanted1.8.1.x+
Flags: wanted1.8.0.x+
Flags: blocking1.8.1.5?
Flags: blocking1.8.0.13?
I'm not sure whether we can tweak the testcase to be exploitable. It's possible that this is always a null deref... But I can't guarantee that, given the invariants this ends up violating.
Target Milestone: mozilla1.9alpha6 → mozilla1.9beta1
On trunk I see the following assertions with this testcase ###!!! ASSERTION: null check on startContent should be sufficient to null check nodeContent as well, since if nodeContent is for the root, startContent (which is before it) must be too: 'nodeContent || !startContent', file c:/dev/fftrunk/mo zilla/layout/base/nsCounterManager.cpp, line 145 ###!!! ASSERTION: The possible descendant is null!: 'aPossibleDescendant', file c:/dev/fftrunk/mozilla/content/base/src/nsContentUtils.cpp, line 1143
Those assertions also fire in bug 385866.
Whiteboard: needs r/sr=roc → needs r/sr=roc .
Whiteboard: needs r/sr=roc . → needs r/sr=roc ..
Attached patch better fix? (deleted) — Splinter Review
Boris, I like this better ... what do you think? I think this is more clear about what's going on.
Attachment #270669 - Flags: superreview?(bzbarsky)
Attachment #270669 - Flags: review?(bzbarsky)
Whiteboard: needs r/sr=roc .. → [sg:low?] null-deref, possible memory manglement if it doesn't crash
Comment on attachment 270669 [details] [diff] [review] better fix? Sure. That works too. Let's also get this in on the branches.
Attachment #270669 - Flags: superreview?(bzbarsky)
Attachment #270669 - Flags: superreview+
Attachment #270669 - Flags: review?(bzbarsky)
Attachment #270669 - Flags: review+
Attachment #268727 - Attachment is obsolete: true
Attachment #268727 - Flags: superreview?(roc)
Attachment #268727 - Flags: review?(roc)
Attachment #268727 - Flags: approval1.8.1.5?
Attachment #268727 - Flags: approval1.8.0.13?
Assignee: bzbarsky → roc
Status: ASSIGNED → NEW
Attachment #270669 - Flags: approval1.8.1.5?
Attachment #270669 - Flags: approval1.8.0.13?
checked in.
Status: NEW → RESOLVED
Closed: 17 years ago
Resolution: --- → FIXED
Comment on attachment 270669 [details] [diff] [review] better fix? approved for 1.8.1.5 and 1.8.0.13, a=dveditz
Attachment #270669 - Flags: approval1.8.1.5?
Attachment #270669 - Flags: approval1.8.1.5+
Attachment #270669 - Flags: approval1.8.0.13?
Attachment #270669 - Flags: approval1.8.0.13+
Comment on attachment 270669 [details] [diff] [review] better fix? tree closing early, non-blocker to next release.
Attachment #270669 - Flags: approval1.8.1.6?
Attachment #270669 - Flags: approval1.8.1.5-
Attachment #270669 - Flags: approval1.8.1.5+
Verified fixed, using: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9a7pre) Gecko/2007071905 Minefield/3.0a7pre
Status: RESOLVED → VERIFIED
Comment on attachment 270669 [details] [diff] [review] better fix? moving approval to 1.8.0.14 to match 1.8.1 branch landing
Attachment #270669 - Flags: approval1.8.0.14?
Attachment #270669 - Flags: approval1.8.0.13-
Attachment #270669 - Flags: approval1.8.0.13+
Flags: blocking1.8.1.7+
Flags: blocking1.8.0.14?
Comment on attachment 270669 [details] [diff] [review] better fix? approved for 1.8.1.7, a=dveditz for release-drivers
Attachment #270669 - Flags: approval1.8.1.7?
Attachment #270669 - Flags: approval1.8.1.7+
Attachment #270669 - Flags: approval1.8.0.14?
Attachment #270669 - Flags: approval1.8.0.14+
verified fixed 1.8.1.7 using Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.2; en-US; rv:1.8.1.7pre) Gecko/2007091204 BonEcho/2.0.0.7pre no crash on testcase - adding verified keyword
Group: security
Flags: blocking1.8.0.14? → blocking1.8.0.14+
No crash on the testcase in comment 0 with neither Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.8.0.14pre) Gecko/20071210 Firefox/1.5.0.13pre nor Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.0; en-US; rv:1.8.0.14pre) Gecko/20071210 Firefox/1.5.0.13pre Replacing fixed1.8.0.14 keyword with verified1.8.0.14
Flags: in-testsuite? → in-testsuite+
Crash Signature: [@ nsContentUtils::ContentIsDescendantOf]
You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.

Attachment

General

Created:
Updated:
Size: