Bug 63247 - [WK2] ASSERTION FAILED: m_shouldWaitForSyncReplies in Connection.cpp
Summary: [WK2] ASSERTION FAILED: m_shouldWaitForSyncReplies in Connection.cpp
Status: NEW
Alias: None
Product: WebKit
Classification: Unclassified
Component: WebKit2 (show other bugs)
Version: 528+ (Nightly build)
Hardware: PC Linux
: P2 Normal
Assignee: Nobody
URL:
Keywords:
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2011-06-23 05:06 PDT by Carlos Garcia Campos
Modified: 2013-07-13 21:45 PDT (History)
5 users (show)

See Also:


Attachments
Patch (1.25 KB, patch)
2011-06-23 05:08 PDT, Carlos Garcia Campos
andersca: review-
Details | Formatted Diff | Diff
New patch (1.46 KB, patch)
2011-06-24 00:16 PDT, Carlos Garcia Campos
benjamin: review-
Details | Formatted Diff | Diff

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description Carlos Garcia Campos 2011-06-23 05:06:16 PDT
It happens when the plugin process crashes and Connection::postConnectionDidCloseOnConnectionWorkQueue() schedules a connectionDidClose but connection was already closed.
Comment 1 Carlos Garcia Campos 2011-06-23 05:08:26 PDT
Created attachment 98335 [details]
Patch
Comment 2 Anders Carlsson 2011-06-23 10:03:05 PDT
Comment on attachment 98335 [details]
Patch

Not sure if this fix is correct. is m_shouldWaitForSyncReplies protected by a mutex? Would it be better to check something in connectionDidClose, maybe modify the assertion?
Comment 3 Carlos Garcia Campos 2011-06-24 00:16:53 PDT
Created attachment 98466 [details]
New patch

Right, I don't think calling connectionDidClose() more than once is a bug, since it can be triggered by different sources, so I've removed the assert and simply check if m_shouldWaitForSyncReplies is true.
Comment 4 Darin Adler 2011-10-17 12:20:30 PDT
Comment on attachment 98466 [details]
New patch

View in context: https://bugs.webkit.org/attachment.cgi?id=98466&action=review

> Source/WebKit2/ChangeLog:10
> +        (CoreIPC::Connection::connectionDidClose): Do not assert when
> +        connectionDidClose is called more than once.

Why do we want to allow calling this more than once?
Comment 5 Darin Adler 2011-10-17 12:21:12 PDT
Sorry, I see your answer there above. Seems Anders should review this.
Comment 6 Philippe Normand 2012-04-24 07:01:57 PDT
(In reply to comment #5)
> Sorry, I see your answer there above. Seems Anders should review this.

Anders can you please have a look at this patch?
Comment 7 Benjamin Poulain 2013-05-10 16:19:57 PDT
Comment on attachment 98466 [details]
New patch

The ChangeLog needs an explanation on:
-What this change fixes.
-Why this is the correct fix.