This bug was filed from the Socorro interface and is report bp-7842586d-781a-4c14-b051-046742120907 . ============================================================= Seen while looking at Win 8 crashes. https://crash-stats.mozilla.com/report/list?signature=hang%20|%20__security_check_cookie. These crashes affect the Win 8 RTM. There are crashes in other versions but in smaller numbers: Windows 8 80.8 % 101 Windows XP 14.4 % 18 Windows 7 4 % 5 Windows Vista 0.8 % 1 Correlations show 72% of users have 11.4.402.265. Frame Module Signature Source 0 ntdll.dll KiFastSystemCallRet 1 ntdll.dll NtWaitForMultipleObjects 2 KERNELBASE.dll __security_check_cookie 3 user32.dll RealMsgWaitForMultipleObjectsEx 4 user32.dll MsgWaitForMultipleObjects 5 NPSWF32_11_4_402_265.dll F_1152915508___________________________________ F988209632__________________________________________________________________________________________:115 6 NPSWF32_11_4_402_265.dll F2166389_____________________________________________________________________ F1456986484______________________________________________________________________:509 7 NPSWF32_11_4_402_265.dll F_917831355____________________________________________ F1456986484______________________________________________________________________:445 8 NPSWF32_11_4_402_265.dll F1315696776________________________________ F1456986484______________________________________________________________________:409 9 NPSWF32_11_4_402_265.dll F81047063_______________________________________ F_1985410557___________________________________________________________________________________:180 10 NPSWF32_11_4_402_265.dll F845925699_____________________________________ F335439454_______________________________________________________________________________________________:92 11 NPSWF32_11_4_402_265.dll F_274593382________________________________ F_1132396120_____________________________________________________________________________________________:1692 12 NPSWF32_11_4_402_265.dll F_305312235__________________________________________ F_1132396120_____________________________________________________________________________________________:981 13 user32.dll InternalCallWinProc 14 user32.dll UserCallWinProcCheckWow 15 user32.dll DispatchMessageWorker 16 user32.dll DispatchMessageW 17 xul.dll base::MessagePumpForUI::ProcessMessageHelper ipc/chromium/src/base/message_pump_win.cc:366 18 xul.dll base::MessagePumpForUI::ProcessNextWindowsMessage ipc/chromium/src/base/message_pump_win.cc:341 19 xul.dll base::MessagePumpForUI::DoRunLoop ipc/chromium/src/base/message_pump_win.cc:210 20 xul.dll base::MessagePumpWin::RunWithDispatcher ipc/chromium/src/base/message_pump_win.cc:53 21 xul.dll base::MessagePumpWin::Run ipc/chromium/src/base/message_pump_win.h:78 22 xul.dll MessageLoop::RunInternal ipc/chromium/src/base/message_loop.cc:208 23 xul.dll MessageLoop::RunHandler ipc/chromium/src/base/message_loop.cc:194 24 xul.dll MessageLoop::Run ipc/chromium/src/base/message_loop.cc:175 25 xul.dll XRE_InitChildProcess toolkit/xre/nsEmbedFunctions.cpp:481 26 plugin-container.exe wmain toolkit/xre/nsWindowsWMain.cpp:100 27 plugin-container.exe __tmainCRTStartup crtexe.c:552 28 kernel32.dll BaseThreadInitThunk 29 ntdll.dll __RtlUserThreadStart 30 ntdll.dll

This is just F_1152915508___________________________________ with a different signature because we aren't skipping security_check_cookie properly. Can you dup it against the generic F_115... bug and file a bug to do something smarter (probably skiplist) the security_check_cookie signature?

We don't seem to have a bug for a generic signature - Bug 788423 was broken out for the dropbox crash - Bug 779830 is for crashes on Facebook, and Bug 763896 is resolved fixed. I can create a new bug if that works.

Bug 789618 is on file for the skiplist.

(In reply to candaules from comment #5) > https://crash-stats.mozilla.com/report/index/6503e867-a691-4cca-81b9- > fdc262130307 Wrong bug? This is a crash and doesn't seem to be related to Flash or even plugins in general.

perhaps this crash report should be moved to the topic Flash crash on facebook, since this happened on a facebook page (without video). thanks.

(In reply to candaules from comment #8) This bug is not actionable. In case you have reliable STR, file a dedicated bug.

Closing ff today I got this report: https://crash-stats.mozilla.com/report/index/bp-0ebc9325-bec5-46eb-9edf-364d82130416 https://crash-stats.mozilla.com/report/index/bp-136b6b73-150d-4442-9830-e38452130416 https://crash-stats.mozilla.com/report/index/bp-3c9443d7-135a-4444-b90e-bfeae2130416

(In reply to banakon from comment #10) > Closing ff today I got this report: If it's a reliable behavior for you, please file a new bug and describe the website(s) where you were before.

agin and again closing a youtube video and opening a second video via central mouse botton https://crash-stats.mozilla.com/report/index/bp-902ccdd4-48e6-42c3-bf30-efbea2130516

https://crash-stats.mozilla.com/report/index/5c07fc3c-bad3-4b74-a545-37b9a2130615 https://crash-stats.mozilla.com/report/index/a3ea9535-55b0-4c85-bea0-665cd2130615 I need absolutely to watch this live http://www.asitv.it/contenuti/nasa-live flash process does arise to 1400MB and hangs. suggestions please. why all the mozilla logs are unuseful to fix problems?

(In reply to banakon from comment #13) > I need absolutely to watch this live Bugzilla is to report dysfunctions to developers. For a workaround, ask in the support forum: https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/questions/new > why all the mozilla logs are unuseful to fix problems? Those crash signatures mean the Flash sandbox makes Flash crash to prevent a potential program that slows down the Firefox/Flash connection from stealing data.

Hi Scoobidiver and Jeromie, https://crash-stats.mozilla.com/report/index/9a5c7c70-4eba-4249-ac74-ddc322130716 are you able watching this video with firefox? http://www.asitv.it/contenuti/nasa-live I tried with THREE different machines (new profile) + laptop. hang, hang, hang. veryinteresting: 3 different pc (ati + nvidia). have you problem with this link? thanks for testing it. I have to use IE9 for this link.

part #2: just reopened the page (on 3 pc!!) flash window does appear, ok. then does appear the text "UPstream" in the player. hang. https://crash-stats.mozilla.com/report/index/726fa808-55b1-414d-af74-d96fa2130716

candaules, no problem for me with the URL in comment 15. Please comment in bug 779657 which is about streaming hangs, this one is only a meta bug.

(In reply to banakon from comment #18) > https://crash-stats.mozilla.com/report/index/d05c650f-c052-4910-b68b- > 1bd702130720 It's not this bug. In addition, without STR it's not exploitable.

https://crash-stats.mozilla.com/report/index/33595682-9e81-427b-855d-87d132131221 steps: close a flash tab and shorty open another flash tab.

https://crash-stats.mozilla.com/report/index/ad6c6b5e-facf-4eb0-bc0f-4156e2140121 "unactionable", but very very often...

https://crash-stats.mozilla.com/report/index/a824027d-47be-4757-9683-1dc062140302 again again and again. uff!!!

Note that we have seen a recent spike in these hangs, with an explosiveness rating of 5.9 currently in the first Firefox 31 Beta. I'm not sure if that's expected given it's the first Beta. Source: https://crash-analysis.mozilla.com/rkaiser/2014-06-15/2014-06-15.firefox.31.explosiveness.html

(In reply to Anthony Hughes, QA Mentor (:ashughes) from comment #26) > Note that we have seen a recent spike in these hangs, with an explosiveness > rating of 5.9 currently in the first Firefox 31 Beta. I'm not sure if that's > expected given it's the first Beta. I think that's just people updating to beta and the weekend, on which all Flash issues always have a higher crashes/user volume.

Just in case the data point is useful, my SO's Firefox Beta 32.0 crashed like this: bp-07a2d30f-3f8a-4dbe-ba40-36fb12140801 01/08/2014 06:05 p.m.

Previous crash was with Flash 14.0.0.145 that it's seemingly current so updating whiteboard.

bp-2ca4c0fd-11f5-4551-b432-e21be2140802 01/08/2014 10:40 a.m.

Looks like we are going through different frames on Win8 and Win8.1 which are both not prefix-skiplisted: https://crash-stats.mozilla.com/report/list?signature=hang%20%7C%20EscapeString%28unsigned%20short%20const%2A%2C%20unsigned%20long%2C%20unsigned%20short%2A%2C%20unsigned%20long%2C%20unsigned%20short%2A%2A%2C%20unsigned%20long%2A%29 https://crash-stats.mozilla.com/report/list?signature=hang%20%7C%20VirtualAlloc

Report ID Date Submitted bp-1d215acc-fdc3-42af-a11f-84b2a2140911 11/09/2014 12:43 p.m. Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:35.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/35.0 ID:20140911064110 CSet: 98ea98c8191a Not sure if related but this Flash crash happened right after a low battery warning on Win7 laptop.

It's back! Just from yesterday: https://crash-stats.mozilla.com/report/index/4f062917-612a-4d09-90ff-1c8042141003 and https://crash-stats.mozilla.com/report/index/9810fca5-7fbb-4cc0-b4dc-e92f12141003 One happened with a youtube video that wasn't even running, just loading, the other with some online radio station that was running, with no other program running. [@ hang | WaitForMultipleObjectsEx | RealMsgWaitForMultipleObjectsEx | MsgWaitForMultipleObjects | F_1152915508___________________________________ ] on Win 7. plugin Shockwave Flash Version:15.0.0.152 Filename:NPSWF32_15_0_0_152.dll Problem lies in dgapi.dll dgapi.dll@0xde824 dgapi.dll dgapi.dll@0x33fab Also related: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1048580 https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1057755 https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=951424 https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1074119

Does my crash report relate to this bug? https://crash-stats.mozilla.com/report/index/5cf5d23e-5f1d-466e-8477-676562150207 https://crash-stats.mozilla.com/report/index/7889c96b-2e14-4eef-8ede-bfe442150207

I think my crash/hang is the same as this one: https://crash-stats.mozilla.com/report/index/0fce46a9-061a-48db-8b61-352642150220 I get this everytime I switch my monitor back and forth from HDMI output to my TV. The plugin hangs and doesn't repond. Let me know if I can help in debugging in any ways

Henrik and others: if you have specific steps to reproduce this hang, please file a separate bug. I am absolutely always looking for ways to reproduce this so we can put engineers on it. If you are able to use the instructions at https://wiki.mozilla.org/Flash/Hang_Debugging to collect full dumps, that could be even more useful.

(In reply to Benjamin Smedberg [:bsmedberg] from comment #37) > Henrik and others: if you have specific steps to reproduce this hang, please > file a separate bug. I am absolutely always looking for ways to reproduce > this so we can put engineers on it. > > If you are able to use the instructions at > https://wiki.mozilla.org/Flash/Hang_Debugging to collect full dumps, that > could be even more useful. OK. Thank you.

bp-8cfd08ba-88dd-478e-acb8-fa9b22150317 17/03/2015 10:21 a.m.

I don't think we need to set status flags here. This issue is well known to be affecting Firefox for a long time now.

If this may help, with FF37 I dont experience this issue, but another enedited until now: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1154696

After 2 months with a perfect behaviour (zero hangs with a lot of flash videos for 18 hours), since a few days the hang re-happens as in the past https://www.facebook.com/arenaverona?fref=ts https://crash-stats.mozilla.com/report/index/ea722316-1354-472a-8a44-3b0d92150805 reasons? misterious. surely NOT due to addons.

reproduced successfully today https://crash-stats.mozilla.com/report/index/c87643b5-d619-46bc-89c0-b9ffa2150806 always here https://www.facebook.com/BandaDeMusicaBriocense only embedded vidoes. zero issues on youtube.

Report ID Date Submitted bp-e0abe23a-6703-4fff-8eae-9e5bd2150806 06/08/2015 05:10 p.m. http://occupyflash.org/ =D

yes occupy flash, but it is possible that this flash problem were not caused by flash itself. flash .209 was released on 14th juli, and the problem re-arised yesterday. (with the same FF settings, same 3 addons, same A/V drivers, same AV, same firewall, in the past Norton, now Comodo cis8...and same flash version). it may be of some help the statement that this never happens with youtube videos nor with rai.tv (flash required), but only with (YT?) videos embedded in FB or other sites, the strange is that FB requires flash activated even in a page without any videos. The solution may comes if we understand why this page https://www.facebook.com/BandaDeMusicaBriocense never caused flash hangs from 2nd july until 4th august! (2 flash versions in the meantime),or if experts can establish the differencies in flash performances on this page compared with normal YT videos from youtube.com. This is an idea only :)

!! I guess that this bug is strongly related to this one: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1158492 when I notice this problem "server not found for 0.5 seconds only", I go this hang; in the 2 past months I never noticed this problem and...zero hangs.

Since this bug is a "generic" bug and is really not a bug but is a placeholder (like a folder) for a variety of more specific bugs, you ask people to not set tracking markers here. You ask people to submit more specific bugs as blocking this generic bug (making it like a folder). So the place to set tracking is in the specific bugs, not the general bug. But then when people submit specific bugs and set tracking for those bugs, you mark those as "RESOLVED/DUPLICATE (of generic bug)" and effectively delete them, since no further tracking or action will taken on these bugs. So how will these issues ever be resolved if the new bugs people create are simply deleted without addressing the underlying problems? If we don't set any tracking markers on this generic bug and we don't allow specific bugs with tracking to exist, how will this ever be resolved? How will we know what versions are affected if we effectively disable tracking?

Signature report for hang | MsgWaitForMultipleObjects | F_1152915508___________________________________ Showing results from 7 days ago Windows 7 12407 37.8% Windows 10 12179 37.1% Windows Vista 8241 25.1% Windows 8.1 3 0.0% Firefox 52.0.2 7406 22.6% 5366 Firefox 52.0.2esr 6524 19.9% 2828 Firefox 53.0b99 4790 14.6% 2108 Firefox 52.1.0esr 2638 8.0% 1368 Firefox 53.0b9 2386 7.3% 890 Firefox 53.0 1927 5.9% 1359 Firefox 53.0b8 1601 4.9% 608 Firefox 53.0b10 876 2.7% 298 Firefox 52.0.1 600 1.8% 577 Firefox 45.8.0esr 510 1.6% 342 Firefox 53.0b7 451 1.4% 197 SeaMonkey 2.21 1 0.0% 1 SeaMonkey 2.32 1 0.0% 1 SeaMonkey 2.6 1 0.0% 1 plugin 32830 100.0% x86 32830 100.0% Flash 25.0.0.148 22542 68.7% 25.0.0.127 6465 19.7% 24.0.0.221 654 2.0% 24.0.0.194 406 1.2% 24.0.0.186 230 0.7% 22.0.0.209 207 0.6% 25.0.0.156 198 0.6% 23.0.0.207 193 0.6% 23.0.0.162 184 0.6% 21.0.0.242 122 0.4%

Signature report for hang | GetModuleHandleExW Showing results from 7 days ago Windows 8 188 100.0% Firefox 52.0.2 65 34.4% 51 Firefox 53.0b99 41 21.7% 18 Firefox 53.0b9 22 11.6% 10 Firefox 53.0 6 3.2% 5 Firefox 53.0b10 5 2.6% 3 Firefox 53.0b8 5 2.6% 3 Firefox 28.0b4 3 1.6% 1 Firefox 51.0.1 3 1.6% 3 Firefox 52.0.1 3 1.6% 3 plugin 188 100.0% x86 188 100.0% Flash 25.0.0.148 99 52.7% 25.0.0.127 27 14.4% 20.0.0.231 12 6.4% 18.0.0.232 8 4.3% 12.0.0.44 5 2.7% 14.0.0.145 4 2.1% 23.0.0.185 4 2.1%

Bug 995784 (In reply to Robert Kaiser from comment #1) > Unless you have concrete steps to reproduce, this is bug 789379, which is a > generic Flash signature with no good steps to debug or move forward > otherwise. So is bug 789379 unsolvable?

(In reply to skywalker333 from comment #63) > Bug 995784 > (In reply to Robert Kaiser from comment #1) > > Unless you have concrete steps to reproduce, this is bug 789379, which is a > > generic Flash signature with no good steps to debug or move forward > > otherwise. > > So is bug 789379 unsolvable? Yes, but see comment #37. It doesn't help to post anything here or do anything with this bug. If you have concrete reproducible cases, please file a separate bug, I hope someone will be found to take a look (I don't work in that area or on Firefox in general and more, so it's not up to me to push this any more).

With the current data this bug is unsolvable and we aren't going to spend engineering time on the generic problem. We will spend engineering time on specific ways to reproduce this problem, which is why they should be filed as separate bugs.