6:26 p.m.
1. Highlight a word on a web page.
2. Right click on word.
3. Select "Search Google for "word"...
4. ???
5. Crash box appears.
Anyone else?
10:58 a.m.
On Fri, Oct 30, 2009 at 04:25:20PM +0100, Antonio M wrote:
2009/10/30 Ralf Corsepius <rc040203(a)freenet.de>:
> On 10/30/2009 12:26 AM, Michael Cronenworth wrote:
>>
>> 1. Highlight a word on a web page.
>> 2. Right click on word.
>> 3. Select "Search Google for "word"...
>> 4. ???
>> 5. Crash box appears.
>>
>> Anyone else?
>>
> I am not observing this issue, but I already had 2 firefox segfaults and one
> firefox "desktop freeze" since today's firefox update.
>
> Seems to me as if firefox is try to play catchup with the embarrassing shape
> thunderbird is in :(
>
> Ralf
>
It works fine here, also with Thunderbird running in the background...
Fully updated F11 system .
Yes, as well as my centos mentioned earlier, my eeepc with f11 and
firefox 3.5.4 also works fine at least for the one instance I tried.
--
---- Fred Smith -- fredex(a)fcshome.stoneham.ma.us ------------------------ ----
Do you not know? Have you not heard?
The LORD is the everlasting God, the Creator of the ends of the earth.
He will not grow tired or weary, and his understanding no one can fathom.
----------------------------- Isaiah 40:28 (niv) -----------------------------
10:38 a.m.
On 10/30/2009 04:25 PM, Antonio M wrote:
2009/10/30 Ralf Corsepius<rc040203(a)freenet.de>:
> On 10/30/2009 12:26 AM, Michael Cronenworth wrote:
>>
>> 1. Highlight a word on a web page.
>> 2. Right click on word.
>> 3. Select "Search Google for "word"...
>> 4. ???
>> 5. Crash box appears.
>>
>> Anyone else?
>>
> I am not observing this issue, but I already had 2 firefox segfaults and one
> firefox "desktop freeze" since today's firefox update.
>
> Seems to me as if firefox is try to play catchup with the embarrassing shape
> thunderbird is in :(
It works fine here,
Well I can reproduce the segfaults semi-deterministically:
http://www.paulmccartney.com
Firefox-3.5.4 either immediately dies, or dies after a little bit of
browsing.
also with Thunderbird running in the background...
I am observing
* corrupt indices and "random email tagging".
* "compact folders" not wanting to traverse deep imap folders.
* filtering issues
Ralf
10:25 a.m.
2009/10/30 Ralf Corsepius <rc040203(a)freenet.de>:
On 10/30/2009 12:26 AM, Michael Cronenworth wrote:
>
> 1. Highlight a word on a web page.
> 2. Right click on word.
> 3. Select "Search Google for "word"...
> 4. ???
> 5. Crash box appears.
>
> Anyone else?
>
I am not observing this issue, but I already had 2 firefox segfaults and one
firefox "desktop freeze" since today's firefox update.
Seems to me as if firefox is try to play catchup with the embarrassing shape
thunderbird is in :(
Ralf
--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list(a)redhat.com
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines
It works fine here, also with Thunderbird running in the background...
Fully updated F11 system .
--
Antonio Montagnani
Skype : antoniomontag
SIP: antoniomontag(a)ekiga.net
10:18 a.m.
On Fri, Oct 30, 2009 at 09:17:18AM -0500, Aaron Konstam wrote:
On Thu, 2009-10-29 at 18:26 -0500, Michael Cronenworth wrote:
> 1. Highlight a word on a web page.
> 2. Right click on word.
> 3. Select "Search Google for "word"...
> 4. ???
> 5. Crash box appears.
>
> Anyone else?
>
I am getting and Assert error when I do the above.
--
I don't see that, but I hafta admit I'm running the download directly
from mozilla, and at the moment I'm using Centos 5.4. I'll check it
on F11 a little later on.
--
---- Fred Smith -- fredex(a)fcshome.stoneham.ma.us -----------------------------
"For the word of God is living and active. Sharper than any double-edged
sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow;
it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart."
---------------------------- Hebrews 4:12 (niv) ------------------------------
9:48 a.m.
On 10/30/2009 12:26 AM, Michael Cronenworth wrote:
1. Highlight a word on a web page.
2. Right click on word.
3. Select "Search Google for "word"...
4. ???
5. Crash box appears.
Anyone else?
I am not observing this issue, but I already had 2 firefox segfaults and
one firefox "desktop freeze" since today's firefox update.
Seems to me as if firefox is try to play catchup with the embarrassing
shape thunderbird is in :(
Ralf
9:17 a.m.
On Thu, 2009-10-29 at 18:26 -0500, Michael Cronenworth wrote:
1. Highlight a word on a web page.
2. Right click on word.
3. Select "Search Google for "word"...
4. ???
5. Crash box appears.
Anyone else?
I am getting and Assert error when I do the above.
--
=======================================================================
Don't let your mind wander -- it's too little to be let out alone.
=======================================================================
Aaron Konstam telephone: (210) 656-0355 e-mail: akonstam(a)sbcglobal.net
6:57 p.m.
suvayu ali writes:
2009/10/29 Michael Cronenworth <mike(a)cchtml.com>:
> On 10/29/2009 06:26 PM, Michael Cronenworth wrote:
>>
>> 1. Highlight a word on a web page.
>> 2. Right click on word.
>> 3. Select "Search Google for "word"...
>> 4. ???
>> 5. Crash box appears.
>>
>> Anyone else?
>>
>
> Ignore this e-mail. Carry on. >.<
>
Did a restart of Firefox fixed it? I think I experienced something
similar last night.
Yes -- I've noticed that a while ago -- after upgrading Firefox, any running
instance needs to be shut down and restarted, otherwise the existing running
Firefox goes bonkers.
6:39 p.m.
2009/10/29 Michael Cronenworth <mike(a)cchtml.com>:
On 10/29/2009 06:26 PM, Michael Cronenworth wrote:
>
> 1. Highlight a word on a web page.
> 2. Right click on word.
> 3. Select "Search Google for "word"...
> 4. ???
> 5. Crash box appears.
>
> Anyone else?
>
Ignore this e-mail. Carry on. >.<
Did a restart of Firefox fixed it? I think I experienced something
similar last night.
--
Suvayu
Open source is the future. It sets us free.
11:51 p.m.
On 10/31/2009 05:35 AM, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
On Sat, 2009-10-31 at 03:52 +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
>> Not so. Plugins and extensions don't run in a sandbox in current
>> versions of FF. Future versions will be different.
>
> You don't have to have a sandbox for this. All that would be required
> is a bit of more or less sophisticated error handling/signal catching.
A semantic quibble.
No. Error handling is a matter of a program's fundamental
design.
Unfortunately it's a subject many programmers don't take into account.
The point is that the architecture has to be
designed to deal with arbitrary behaviour on the part of plugins or
extensions and currently it isn't.
May-be, I am not familiar with firefox's
source-code.
Anyway, to me this reads as "firefox" suffers from substantial
fundamental design flaws :(
Ralf
11:35 p.m.
On Sat, 2009-10-31 at 03:52 +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> Not so. Plugins and extensions don't run in a sandbox in
current
> versions of FF. Future versions will be different.
You don't have to have a sandbox for this. All that would be required
is a bit of more or less sophisticated error handling/signal catching.
A semantic quibble. The point is that the architecture has to be
designed to deal with arbitrary behaviour on the part of plugins or
extensions and currently it isn't. In contrast Google Chrome runs each
tab in a separate process to isolate the effects of bugs, and Mozilla
plans to do the same in a future version of FF, but not yet.
poc
10:19 p.m.
On Fri, 2009-10-30 at 16:32 -0400, homburg(a)tips-Q.com wrote:
I NEVER thought I would say this but Opera is rapidly
becoming my browser of choice. One serious flaw is that it
does not support squid.
In what way? I can put proxy server addresses into Opera, and it'll use
them. It doesn't care whether the proxy is Squid.
--
[tim@localhost ~]$ uname -r
2.6.27.25-78.2.56.fc9.i686
Don't send private replies to my address, the mailbox is ignored. I
read messages from the public lists.
9:52 p.m.
On 10/30/2009 07:38 PM, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
On Fri, 2009-10-30 at 18:20 +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> On 10/30/2009 06:03 PM, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
>> On Fri, 2009-10-30 at 16:38 +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
>
>>> Well I can reproduce the segfaults semi-deterministically:
>>> http://www.paulmccartney.com
>>>
>>> Firefox-3.5.4 either immediately dies, or dies after a little bit of
>>> browsing.
>>
>> The standard response to FF problems is "have you tried running it in
>> safe-mode"? I'm surprised no-one has said it so far. Many problems are
>> actually caused by plugins rather than FF itself.
> True - nevertheless, if a plugin is able to tear down firefox, firefox
> itself is broken, too.
Not so. Plugins and extensions don't run in a sandbox in current
versions of FF. Future versions will be different.
You don't have to have a sandbox for this. All that would be required is
a bit of more or less sophisticated error handling/signal catching.
Ralf
8:48 p.m.
On Friday 30 October 2009, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
On 10/30/2009 04:25 PM, Antonio M wrote:
> 2009/10/30 Ralf Corsepius<rc040203(a)freenet.de>:
>> On 10/30/2009 12:26 AM, Michael Cronenworth wrote:
>>> 1. Highlight a word on a web page.
>>> 2. Right click on word.
>>> 3. Select "Search Google for "word"...
>>> 4. ???
>>> 5. Crash box appears.
>>>
>>> Anyone else?
>>
>> I am not observing this issue, but I already had 2 firefox segfaults and
>> one firefox "desktop freeze" since today's firefox update.
>>
>> Seems to me as if firefox is try to play catchup with the embarrassing
>> shape thunderbird is in :(
>
> It works fine here,
Well I can reproduce the segfaults semi-deterministically:
http://www.paulmccartney.com
Firefox-3.5.4 either immediately dies, or dies after a little bit of
browsing.
It died, and sent a crash report on the second backout click, about 10 links
into the site.
> also with Thunderbird running in the background...
I am observing
* corrupt indices and "random email tagging".
* "compact folders" not wanting to traverse deep imap folders.
* filtering issues
Ralf
--
Cheers, Gene
"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author)
The NRA is offering FREE Associate memberships to anyone who wants them.
<https://www.nrahq.org/nrabonus/accept-membership.asp>
But maybe we don't really need that...
-- Larry Wall in <199709011851.LAA07101(a)wall.org>
4:11 p.m.
On Fri, Oct 30, 2009 at 16:32:30 -0400,
homburg(a)tips-Q.com wrote:
On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 15:48:54 +0100
I NEVER thought I would say this but Opera is rapidly
becoming my browser of choice. One serious flaw is that it
does not support squid. With that exception it is
substantially faster and more reliable than FF.
NOTE: Opera is NOT open source.
I think a lot of people have held those views for a long time.
I use Firefox because I think eating your own dog food is a good idea.
I don't think the developers take security seriously enough and when they
try to they do really brain damaged stuff instead of making real improvements.
There are other graphical browsers in Fedora though, and I really need to
get around to looking at some of them.
3:32 p.m.
On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 15:48:54 +0100
Ralf Corsepius <rc040203(a)freenet.de> wrote:
Seems to me as if firefox is try to play catchup with the
embarrassing shape thunderbird is in :(
I NEVER thought I would say this but Opera is rapidly
becoming my browser of choice. One serious flaw is that it
does not support squid. With that exception it is
substantially faster and more reliable than FF.
NOTE: Opera is NOT open source.
--
"Neither Lifestyle nor Agenda"
http://www.tips-Q.com
http://twitter.com/tipsq
1:38 p.m.
On Fri, 2009-10-30 at 18:20 +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
On 10/30/2009 06:03 PM, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
> On Fri, 2009-10-30 at 16:38 +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
>> Well I can reproduce the segfaults semi-deterministically:
>> http://www.paulmccartney.com
>>
>> Firefox-3.5.4 either immediately dies, or dies after a little bit of
>> browsing.
>
> The standard response to FF problems is "have you tried running it in
> safe-mode"? I'm surprised no-one has said it so far. Many problems are
> actually caused by plugins rather than FF itself.
True - nevertheless, if a plugin is able to tear down firefox, firefox
itself is broken, too.
Not so. Plugins and extensions don't run in a sandbox in current
versions of FF. Future versions will be different.
poc
12:20 p.m.
On 10/30/2009 06:03 PM, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
On Fri, 2009-10-30 at 16:38 +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> Well I can reproduce the segfaults semi-deterministically:
> http://www.paulmccartney.com
>
> Firefox-3.5.4 either immediately dies, or dies after a little bit of
> browsing.
The standard response to FF problems is "have you tried running it in
safe-mode"? I'm surprised no-one has said it so far. Many problems are
actually caused by plugins rather than FF itself.
True - nevertheless, if a plugin
is able to tear down firefox, firefox
itself is broken, too.
Ralf
12:03 p.m.
On Fri, 2009-10-30 at 16:38 +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
On 10/30/2009 04:25 PM, Antonio M wrote:
> 2009/10/30 Ralf Corsepius<rc040203(a)freenet.de>:
>> On 10/30/2009 12:26 AM, Michael Cronenworth wrote:
>>>
>>> 1. Highlight a word on a web page.
>>> 2. Right click on word.
>>> 3. Select "Search Google for "word"...
>>> 4. ???
>>> 5. Crash box appears.
>>>
>>> Anyone else?
>>>
>> I am not observing this issue, but I already had 2 firefox segfaults and one
>> firefox "desktop freeze" since today's firefox update.
>>
>> Seems to me as if firefox is try to play catchup with the embarrassing shape
>> thunderbird is in :(
> It works fine here,
Well I can reproduce the segfaults semi-deterministically:
http://www.paulmccartney.com
Firefox-3.5.4 either immediately dies, or dies after a little bit of
browsing.
The standard response to FF problems is "have you tried running it in
safe-mode"? I'm surprised no-one has said it so far. Many problems are
actually caused by plugins rather than FF itself.
poc
11:50 a.m.
On 10/30/2009 05:20 PM, Michael Cronenworth wrote:
Aaron Konstam on 10/30/2009 09:17 AM wrote:
>>
> I am getting and Assert error when I do the above.
You need to restart Firefox.
P.S. This thread is closed. ;)
You mean, works for you ;)
Here is a back trace of a segfault which just happend to me:
#0 0x000000318900edab in raise () from /lib64/libpthread.so.0
Missing separate debuginfos, use: debuginfo-install
firefox-3.5.4-1.fc11.x86_64
(gdb) where
#0 0x000000318900edab in raise () from /lib64/libpthread.so.0
#1 0x00007f0def222288 in ?? () from /usr/lib64/xulrunner-1.9.1/libxul.so
#2 <signal handler called>
#3 0x0000000000000000 in ?? ()
#4 0x00007f0def43044b in ?? () from /usr/lib64/xulrunner-1.9.1/libxul.so
#5 0x00007f0def4365d1 in ?? () from /usr/lib64/xulrunner-1.9.1/libxul.so
#6 0x00007f0def436c84 in ?? () from /usr/lib64/xulrunner-1.9.1/libxul.so
#7 0x00007f0def43b0b4 in ?? () from /usr/lib64/xulrunner-1.9.1/libxul.so
#8 0x00007f0def43b424 in ?? () from /usr/lib64/xulrunner-1.9.1/libxul.so
#9 0x00007f0def3bbecc in ?? () from /usr/lib64/xulrunner-1.9.1/libxul.so
#10 0x00007f0def3bc098 in ?? () from /usr/lib64/xulrunner-1.9.1/libxul.so
#11 0x00007f0def3bbecc in ?? () from /usr/lib64/xulrunner-1.9.1/libxul.so
#12 0x00007f0def3ce256 in ?? () from /usr/lib64/xulrunner-1.9.1/libxul.so
#13 0x00007f0def3d6006 in ?? () from /usr/lib64/xulrunner-1.9.1/libxul.so
#14 0x00007f0def664023 in ?? () from /usr/lib64/xulrunner-1.9.1/libxul.so
#15 0x00007f0def6646e7 in ?? () from /usr/lib64/xulrunner-1.9.1/libxul.so
#16 0x00007f0def664cb5 in ?? () from /usr/lib64/xulrunner-1.9.1/libxul.so
#17 0x00007f0def66019d in ?? () from /usr/lib64/xulrunner-1.9.1/libxul.so
#18 0x00007f0defa15fed in ?? () from /usr/lib64/xulrunner-1.9.1/libxul.so
#19 0x00007f0defa1f7c7 in ?? () from /usr/lib64/xulrunner-1.9.1/libxul.so
#20 0x00007f0defa1fbc8 in ?? () from /usr/lib64/xulrunner-1.9.1/libxul.so
#21 0x0000003069349b63 in ?? () from /usr/lib64/libgtk-x11-2.0.so.0
#22 0x0000003066e0b81e in g_closure_invoke () from
/lib64/libgobject-2.0.so.0
---Type <return> to continue, or q <return> to quit---
#23 0x0000003066e20b43 in ?? () from /lib64/libgobject-2.0.so.0
#24 0x0000003066e21d6c in g_signal_emit_valist () from
/lib64/libgobject-2.0.so.0
#25 0x0000003066e22423 in g_signal_emit () from /lib64/libgobject-2.0.so.0
#26 0x000000306946739f in ?? () from /usr/lib64/libgtk-x11-2.0.so.0
#27 0x0000003069341f3c in gtk_main_do_event () from
/usr/lib64/libgtk-x11-2.0.so.0
#28 0x0000003068638052 in ?? () from /usr/lib64/libgdk-x11-2.0.so.0
#29 0x0000003068638971 in gdk_window_process_all_updates () from
/usr/lib64/libgdk-x11-2.0.so.0
#30 0x0000003068638999 in ?? () from /usr/lib64/libgdk-x11-2.0.so.0
#31 0x000000306861c906 in ?? () from /usr/lib64/libgdk-x11-2.0.so.0
#32 0x0000003066a3790e in g_main_context_dispatch () from
/lib64/libglib-2.0.so.0
#33 0x0000003066a3b0e8 in ?? () from /lib64/libglib-2.0.so.0
#34 0x0000003066a3b20a in g_main_context_iteration () from
/lib64/libglib-2.0.so.0
#35 0x00007f0defa36a83 in ?? () from /usr/lib64/xulrunner-1.9.1/libxul.so
#36 0x00007f0defa36b8f in ?? () from /usr/lib64/xulrunner-1.9.1/libxul.so
#37 0x00007f0defaf1af2 in ?? () from /usr/lib64/xulrunner-1.9.1/libxul.so
#38 0x00007f0defac3187 in ?? () from /usr/lib64/xulrunner-1.9.1/libxul.so
#39 0x00007f0defa36ccd in ?? () from /usr/lib64/xulrunner-1.9.1/libxul.so
#40 0x00007f0def8e1f64 in ?? () from /usr/lib64/xulrunner-1.9.1/libxul.so
#41 0x00007f0def21c4b4 in XRE_main () from
/usr/lib64/xulrunner-1.9.1/libxul.so
#42 0x0000000000402616 in mmap ()
#43 0x000000318841ea2d in __libc_start_main () from /lib64/libc.so.6
#44 0x0000000000401e29 in mmap ()
#45 0x00007fff4277a348 in ?? ()
---Type <return> to continue, or q <return> to quit---
#46 0x000000000000001c in ?? ()
#47 0x0000000000000001 in ?? ()
#48 0x00007fff4277b2d6 in ?? ()
#49 0x0000000000000000 in ?? ()
Ralf
10:43 a.m.
On Sat, 2009-10-31 at 05:51 +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
On 10/31/2009 05:35 AM, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
> On Sat, 2009-10-31 at 03:52 +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
>>> Not so. Plugins and extensions don't run in a sandbox in current
>>> versions of FF. Future versions will be different.
>>
>> You don't have to have a sandbox for this. All that would be required
>> is a bit of more or less sophisticated error handling/signal catching.
>
> A semantic quibble.
No. Error handling is a matter of a program's fundamental design.
Unfortunately it's a subject many programmers don't take into account.
You're missing the point. FF allows extensions. An extension is a module
of code not written by the FF authors, which is dynamically loaded into
a running instance of the browser. It is *not possible*, even in theory,
to stop such an arbitrary module from wreaking havoc with the rest of
the browser unless it a) runs at a lower privilege level, including
isolated memory (i.e. a sandbox) or b) runs in a separate process, IOW a
sandbox supported by the OS.
It's just like what used to happen on old MS operating systems, e.g.
MS-DOS, which didn't support privilege domains. Any user program could
halt the system, overwrite files, install a boot virus etc. For
"operating system" read "browser", for "user program" read
"module", for
"halt the system, overwrite files etc." read "crash the browser, leak
memory etc." and we have the exact same situation.
> The point is that the architecture has to be
> designed to deal with arbitrary behaviour on the part of plugins or
> extensions and currently it isn't.
May-be, I am not familiar with firefox's source-code.
Anyway, to me this reads as "firefox" suffers from substantial
fundamental design flaws :(
Every other browser out there that allows user-loadable modules has the
same problem, with the exception of Chrome (and possibly IE8, but I'm
sure it has its own problems :-)
poc
5298
days inactive
5300
days old
22 comments
12 participants
participants (12)
-
Aaron Konstam -
Antonio M -
Bruno Wolff III -
Fred Smith -
Gene Heskett -
homburg＠tips-Q.com -
Michael Cronenworth -
Patrick O'Callaghan -
Ralf Corsepius -
Sam Varshavchik -
Suvayu Ali -
Tim