Closed
Bug 582477
Opened 14 years ago
Closed 14 years ago
[e10s] HttpChannelChild triggers abort on bing.com (after bug 540097)
Categories
(Core :: Networking: HTTP, defect)
Tracking
()
RESOLVED
FIXED
Tracking | Status | |
---|---|---|
fennec | 2.0b1+ | --- |
People
(Reporter: cjones, Assigned: cjones)
References
()
Details
Attachments
(1 file, 1 obsolete file)
(deleted),
patch
|
jduell.mcbugs
:
review+
|
Details | Diff | Splinter Review |
In HttpChannelChild.cpp, we're hitting the |return false;| here
rv = mListener->OnDataAvailable(this, mListenerContext,
stringStream, offset, count);
stringStream->Close();
if (NS_FAILED(rv)) {
// TODO: Cancel request: see OnStartRequest. Bug 536317
return false;
}
This is caused by
rv = mImage->Init(this, mContentType.get(), containerFlags);
if (NS_FAILED(rv)) { // Probably bad mimetype
// There's no reason to keep the image around. Save memory.
//
// XXXbholley - This is also here because I'm not sure we've found
// all the consumers who (incorrectly) check whether the container
// is null to determine things like size availability (they should
// be checking the image status instead).
mImage = nsnull;
this->Cancel(rv);
return NS_BINDING_ABORTED;
}
in imgRequest.cpp. It apparently doesn't like
(gdb) p mContentType
$2 = {
<nsACString_internal> = {
mData = 0x28a91e8 "application/json",
mLength = 16,
mFlags = 5
}, <No data fields>}
Can't say I blame it. bing.com looks to be at fault. However, HttpChannelChild shouldn't be returning false here; this isn't a protocol/transport error, it's just malformed web content. We have to deal with that gracefully. I think we should be returning true in this case.
Comment 1•14 years ago
|
||
I would agree, but I don't know if it's really worth making this change versus waiting for the Cancel work to finish up and land (bug 536317). Although I guess now that the child process aborts on any failure, this might have a larger impact.
Assignee | ||
Comment 2•14 years ago
|
||
Assignee: nobody → jones.chris.g
Attachment #460753 -
Flags: review?(jduell.mcbugs)
Assignee | ||
Comment 3•14 years ago
|
||
If bug 540097 gets blocking+, this should as well, since we can't in good conscience turn on strong checking without this bug fixed.
Blocks: 540097
tracking-fennec: --- → ?
Assignee | ||
Comment 4•14 years ago
|
||
(In reply to comment #1)
> I would agree, but I don't know if it's really worth making this change versus
> waiting for the Cancel work to finish up and land (bug 536317). Although I
> guess now that the child process aborts on any failure, this might have a
> larger impact.
This is totally orthogonal to Cancel being implemented, unless those patches incidentally change this return value.
Comment 5•14 years ago
|
||
(In reply to comment #4)
> This is totally orthogonal to Cancel being implemented, unless those patches
> incidentally change this return value.
Which in fact they do.
Comment 6•14 years ago
|
||
I'd rather land Cancel and fix these in that patch. Reopen if there winds up being a time constraint--I agree we should fix this in anything we ship.
Status: NEW → RESOLVED
Closed: 14 years ago
Resolution: --- → DUPLICATE
Assignee | ||
Comment 7•14 years ago
|
||
IMHO this is a totally bogus dup. Please let's land Cancel() soon, in the passive-aggressive sense.
Comment 8•14 years ago
|
||
Reopening, marking as depending on Cancel. Is that better? At least this way we won't forget to test.
Assignee | ||
Comment 9•14 years ago
|
||
No, but we have bigger fish to fry, so let's not worry about it anymore. Onward ho!
Updated•14 years ago
|
tracking-fennec: ? → 2.0b1+
Comment 11•14 years ago
|
||
I'm all for landing this, as Cancel doesn't seem in any danger of being finished up imminently. These errors are annoying and quite common on some pages.
Assignee | ||
Comment 12•14 years ago
|
||
Will give this another shot. In the interim, I found another |return false;| that this v2 fixes.
Attachment #460753 -
Attachment is obsolete: true
Attachment #462828 -
Flags: review?(jduell.mcbugs)
Attachment #460753 -
Flags: review?(jduell.mcbugs)
Comment 13•14 years ago
|
||
Status: REOPENED → RESOLVED
Closed: 14 years ago → 14 years ago
Resolution: --- → FIXED
Comment 14•14 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 462828 [details] [diff] [review]
HTTP channel listener errors shouldn't be reported as IPC protocol/transport errors, v2
forgot to mark +r
Attachment #462828 -
Flags: review?(jduell.mcbugs) → review+
You need to log in
before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description
•