RESOLVED FIXED 209641
Nullptr crash in CompositeEditCommand::moveParagraphs when inserting OL into uneditable parent.
https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=209641
Summary Nullptr crash in CompositeEditCommand::moveParagraphs when inserting OL into ...
Jack
Reported 2020-03-26 21:10:11 PDT
<rdar://60915598> 0 com.apple.WebCore 0x0000000113bfdf6d WTF::Optional<WebCore::BoundaryPoint>::operator*() && + 45 1 com.apple.WebCore 0x00000001162fb268 WebCore::CompositeEditCommand::moveParagraphs(WebCore::VisiblePosition const&, WebCore::VisiblePosition const&, WebCore::VisiblePosition const&, bool, bool) + 4616 2 com.apple.WebCore 0x00000001163a7fc4 WebCore::InsertListCommand::unlistifyParagraph(WebCore::VisiblePosition const&, WebCore::HTMLElement*, WebCore::Node*) + 1860 3 com.apple.WebCore 0x00000001163a73e1 WebCore::InsertListCommand::doApplyForSingleParagraph(bool, WebCore::HTMLQualifiedName const&, WebCore::Range*) + 2977 4 com.apple.WebCore 0x00000001163a6510 WebCore::InsertListCommand::doApply() + 2624 5 com.apple.WebCore 0x00000001162d7957 WebCore::CompositeEditCommand::apply() + 439 6 com.apple.WebCore 0x000000011638dd19 WebCore::executeInsertOrderedList(WebCore::Frame&, WebCore::Event*, WebCore::EditorCommandSource, WTF::String const&) + 201 7 com.apple.WebCore 0x0000000116007e88 WebCore::Document::execCommand(WTF::String const&, bool, WTF::String const&) + 248
Attachments
Patch (4.51 KB, patch)
2020-03-26 21:44 PDT, Jack
no flags
Patch (4.80 KB, patch)
2020-03-26 23:09 PDT, Jack
no flags
Patch for landing (4.77 KB, patch)
2020-03-27 10:36 PDT, Jack
no flags
Jack
Comment 1 2020-03-26 21:23:08 PDT
In this case we try to insert ol at the position of li. Because li is originally in un-ordered list, we call unlistifyParagraph to move li into a BR element. Since BR needs to be inserted in body, but body is not editable, the insertion fails and leave BR parentless. The next call in moveParagraphs deref the parent of BR and crashed. </style> <script> window.onload = () => { document.getSelection().setPosition(LI); document.execCommand("insertOrderedList", false); } </script> <body><ul><li id=LI contenteditable="true">
Jack
Comment 2 2020-03-26 21:44:45 PDT
Jack
Comment 3 2020-03-26 21:56:11 PDT
This is a conservative patch. We are checking parentless node after insertion. In debug build, a lot of assertions for editable content trigger before and during insertion. I was wondering if checking parent of container node of the visible position for edibility is okay? Is it too aggressive and may find false positive? I roughly checked all the insertion calls and each of them eventually checks parent or ancestor for editability. Something like this: if (!start.deepEquivalent().containerNode()->hasEditableStyle() || !start.deepEquivalent().containerNode()->parentNode()->hasEditableStyle()) return;
Ryosuke Niwa
Comment 4 2020-03-26 22:06:28 PDT
(In reply to Jack from comment #3) > This is a conservative patch. We are checking parentless node after > insertion. In debug build, a lot of assertions for editable content trigger > before and during insertion. Hm... we probably need to fix that because we can't land a test which hits assertions in debug builds. > I was wondering if checking parent of container node of the visible position > for edibility is okay? Is it too aggressive and may find false positive? I > roughly checked all the insertion calls and each of them eventually checks > parent or ancestor for editability. > > Something like this: > > if (!start.deepEquivalent().containerNode()->hasEditableStyle() || > !start.deepEquivalent().containerNode()->parentNode()->hasEditableStyle()) > return; At where? That doesn't seem right if container node itself is editable. Why does the parent of the container node needs to be also editable?
Jack
Comment 5 2020-03-26 22:12:54 PDT
(In reply to Ryosuke Niwa from comment #4) > (In reply to Jack from comment #3) > > This is a conservative patch. We are checking parentless node after > > insertion. In debug build, a lot of assertions for editable content trigger > > before and during insertion. > > Hm... we probably need to fix that because we can't land a test which hits > assertions in debug builds. I see. > > if (!start.deepEquivalent().containerNode()->hasEditableStyle() || > > !start.deepEquivalent().containerNode()->parentNode()->hasEditableStyle()) > > return; > > At where? That doesn't seem right if container node itself is editable. Why > does the parent of the container node needs to be also editable? In the beginning of the function. It's because the function insertNodeAfter or insertNodeBefore eventually append or insert to the parent, for example: void CompositeEditCommand::insertNodeAfter(Ref<Node>&& insertChild, Node& refChild) { ContainerNode* parent = refChild.parentNode(); ... if (parent->lastChild() == &refChild) appendNode(WTFMove(insertChild), *parent); }
Jack
Comment 6 2020-03-26 22:17:21 PDT
And InsertNodeBefore also checks parent for editability. void InsertNodeBeforeCommand::doApply() { ContainerNode* parent = m_refChild->parentNode(); if (!parent || (m_shouldAssumeContentIsAlwaysEditable == DoNotAssumeContentIsAlwaysEditable && !isEditableNode(*parent))) return; ASSERT(isEditableNode(*parent)); parent->insertBefore(m_insertChild, m_refChild.ptr()); }
Ryosuke Niwa
Comment 7 2020-03-26 22:20:59 PDT
(In reply to Jack from comment #5) > (In reply to Ryosuke Niwa from comment #4) > > (In reply to Jack from comment #3) > > > This is a conservative patch. We are checking parentless node after > > > insertion. In debug build, a lot of assertions for editable content trigger > > > before and during insertion. > > > > Hm... we probably need to fix that because we can't land a test which hits > > assertions in debug builds. > I see. > > > > if (!start.deepEquivalent().containerNode()->hasEditableStyle() || > > > !start.deepEquivalent().containerNode()->parentNode()->hasEditableStyle()) > > > return; > > > > At where? That doesn't seem right if container node itself is editable. Why > > does the parent of the container node needs to be also editable? > In the beginning of the function. The beginning of which function? InsertListCommand::unlistifyParagraph? > It's because the function insertNodeAfter or insertNodeBefore eventually > append or insert to the parent, for example: In which function? It's unclear what code of which function you're talking about.
Jack
Comment 8 2020-03-26 22:24:31 PDT
> In which function? It's unclear what code of which function you're talking > about. Oh sorry, the changes are in unlistifyParagraph and listifyParagraph.
Jack
Comment 9 2020-03-26 23:09:28 PDT
Jack
Comment 10 2020-03-26 23:13:32 PDT
Thanks to Ryosuke for discussion. We use more aggressive editability check in unlistifyParagraph because the insertion position is always the listNode. Try this patch on EWS tests. (In reply to Jack from comment #9) > Created attachment 394706 [details] > Patch
Ryosuke Niwa
Comment 11 2020-03-26 23:58:51 PDT
Comment on attachment 394706 [details] Patch View in context: https://bugs.webkit.org/attachment.cgi?id=394706&action=review > Source/WebCore/editing/InsertListCommand.cpp:277 > + Nit: whitespace. > Source/WebCore/editing/InsertListCommand.cpp:280 > + Nit: whitespace. > Source/WebCore/editing/InsertListCommand.cpp:398 > + Nit: whitespace. > LayoutTests/editing/inserting/insert-ol-uneditable-parent.html:1 > +</style> Do we really need this?
Ryosuke Niwa
Comment 12 2020-03-26 23:59:59 PDT
There is no security implication here.
Jack
Comment 13 2020-03-27 10:36:16 PDT
Created attachment 394728 [details] Patch for landing
Jack
Comment 14 2020-03-27 10:38:12 PDT
Thanks for the good catches! It's in the original test case, somehow my eyes automatically skip that... :-) (In reply to Ryosuke Niwa from comment #11) > Comment on attachment 394706 [details]
EWS
Comment 15 2020-03-27 21:17:05 PDT
Committed r259153: <https://trac.webkit.org/changeset/259153> All reviewed patches have been landed. Closing bug and clearing flags on attachment 394728 [details].
Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.