Firefox crashes or hangs on GMail

Bug #788102 reported by Dmitry Tantsur
38
This bug affects 7 people
Affects Status Importance Assigned to Milestone
firefox (Ubuntu)
Invalid
Undecided
Unassigned

Bug Description

Binary package hint: firefox

After update to 4.0.1 (from 4.0.0) I'm experiencing the following trouble:
- when CLOSING GMail tab it closes but Firefox hangs.

Under GDB I managed to crash Firefox on OPENING GMail tab with the following tb:
...
[New Thread 0x7fff9a0f8700 (LWP 10571)]
[New Thread 0x7fff968ff700 (LWP 10573)]
[New Thread 0x7fff960fe700 (LWP 10574)]
[New Thread 0x7fff958fd700 (LWP 10575)]
[Thread 0x7fff968ff700 (LWP 10573) exited]
[Thread 0x7fff958fd700 (LWP 10575) exited]
[Thread 0x7fffc92fd700 (LWP 10377) exited]
[Thread 0x7fffd48ff700 (LWP 10382) exited]
[Thread 0x7fffc82fb700 (LWP 10519) exited]
[Thread 0x7fff9a0f8700 (LWP 10571) exited]
[Thread 0x7fff960fe700 (LWP 10574) exited]
[Thread 0x7fffc72f9700 (LWP 10392) exited]
[New Thread 0x7fffc72f9700 (LWP 10729)]
[New Thread 0x7fff960fe700 (LWP 10735)]

Program received signal SIGPIPE, Broken pipe.
[Switching to Thread 0x7fffe46ff700 (LWP 9960)]
0x00007ffff7bc025c in send () from /lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libpthread.so.0
(gdb) back
#0 0x00007ffff7bc025c in send () from /lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libpthread.so.0
#1 0x00007ffff50e522d in pt_Send (fd=0x7fff991c5c70, buf=0x7fff97174000, amount=27, flags=0, timeout=4294967295) at /build/buildd/firefox-4.0.1+build1+nobinonly/build-tree/mozilla/nsprpub/pr/src/pthreads/ptio.c:1931
#2 0x00007ffff0da6166 in ssl_DefSend () from /usr/lib/firefox-4.0.1/libssl3.so
#3 0x00007ffff0d999fe in ssl3_SendRecord () from /usr/lib/firefox-4.0.1/libssl3.so
#4 0x00007ffff0d9c023 in SSL3_SendAlert () from /usr/lib/firefox-4.0.1/libssl3.so
#5 0x00007ffff0da9f0e in ssl_SecureClose () from /usr/lib/firefox-4.0.1/libssl3.so
#6 0x00007ffff6892175 in nsNSSSocketInfo::CloseSocketAndDestroy (this=0x7fff9e2a9700) at /build/buildd/firefox-4.0.1+build1+nobinonly/build-tree/mozilla/security/manager/ssl/src/nsNSSIOLayer.cpp:1831
#7 0x00007ffff6886228 in nsSSLThread::requestClose (si=0x7fff9e2a9700) at /build/buildd/firefox-4.0.1+build1+nobinonly/build-tree/mozilla/security/manager/ssl/src/nsSSLThread.cpp:437
#8 0x00007ffff689150c in nsSSLIOLayerClose (fd=0x7fffd00f7b50) at /build/buildd/firefox-4.0.1+build1+nobinonly/build-tree/mozilla/security/manager/ssl/src/nsNSSIOLayer.cpp:1820
#9 0x00007ffff615e688 in nsSocketTransport::ReleaseFD_Locked (this=0x7fff97b83820, fd=<value optimized out>) at /build/buildd/firefox-4.0.1+build1+nobinonly/build-tree/mozilla/netwerk/base/src/nsSocketTransport2.cpp:1395
#10 0x00007ffff61603ee in nsSocketTransport::OnSocketDetached (this=0x7fff97b83820, fd=<value optimized out>) at /build/buildd/firefox-4.0.1+build1+nobinonly/build-tree/mozilla/netwerk/base/src/nsSocketTransport2.cpp:1626
#11 0x00007ffff6161437 in nsSocketTransportService::DetachSocket (this=0x7fffe485e000, sock=0x7fffe485e0a0) at /build/buildd/firefox-4.0.1+build1+nobinonly/build-tree/mozilla/netwerk/base/src/nsSocketTransportService2.cpp:188
#12 0x00007ffff61617ea in nsSocketTransportService::DoPollIteration (this=0x7fffe485e000, wait=<value optimized out>) at /build/buildd/firefox-4.0.1+build1+nobinonly/build-tree/mozilla/netwerk/base/src/nsSocketTransportService2.cpp:710
#13 0x00007ffff61618cb in nsSocketTransportService::OnProcessNextEvent (this=0x7fffe485e000, thread=0x7fffea5fee20, mayWait=1, depth=<value optimized out>)
    at /build/buildd/firefox-4.0.1+build1+nobinonly/build-tree/mozilla/netwerk/base/src/nsSocketTransportService2.cpp:552
#14 0x00007ffff6b19ed9 in nsThread::ProcessNextEvent (this=0x7fffea5fee20, mayWait=1, result=0x7fffe46feaac) at /build/buildd/firefox-4.0.1+build1+nobinonly/build-tree/mozilla/xpcom/threads/nsThread.cpp:597
#15 0x00007ffff6ae9ab8 in NS_ProcessNextEvent_P (thread=<value optimized out>, mayWait=<value optimized out>) at nsThreadUtils.cpp:250
#16 0x00007ffff6161c8c in nsSocketTransportService::Run (this=0x7fffe485e000) at /build/buildd/firefox-4.0.1+build1+nobinonly/build-tree/mozilla/netwerk/base/src/nsSocketTransportService2.cpp:594
#17 0x00007ffff6b19fde in nsThread::ProcessNextEvent (this=0x7fffea5fee20, mayWait=1, result=0x7fffe46feb9c) at /build/buildd/firefox-4.0.1+build1+nobinonly/build-tree/mozilla/xpcom/threads/nsThread.cpp:633
#18 0x00007ffff6ae9ab8 in NS_ProcessNextEvent_P (thread=<value optimized out>, mayWait=<value optimized out>) at nsThreadUtils.cpp:250
#19 0x00007ffff6b19be3 in nsThread::ThreadFunc (arg=0x7fffea5fee20) at /build/buildd/firefox-4.0.1+build1+nobinonly/build-tree/mozilla/xpcom/threads/nsThread.cpp:278
#20 0x00007ffff50e8553 in _pt_root (arg=0x7fffec710bf0) at /build/buildd/firefox-4.0.1+build1+nobinonly/build-tree/mozilla/nsprpub/pr/src/pthreads/ptthread.c:187
#21 0x00007ffff7bb7d8c in start_thread () from /lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libpthread.so.0
#22 0x00007ffff156304d in clone () from /lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libc.so.6
#23 0x0000000000000000 in ?? ()

ProblemType: Bug
DistroRelease: Ubuntu 11.04
Package: firefox 4.0.1+build1+nobinonly-0ubuntu0.11.04.2
ProcVersionSignature: Ubuntu 2.6.38-8.42-generic 2.6.38.2
Uname: Linux 2.6.38-8-generic x86_64
NonfreeKernelModules: nvidia
Architecture: amd64
Date: Wed May 25 16:48:00 2011
FirefoxPackages:
 firefox 4.0.1+build1+nobinonly-0ubuntu0.11.04.2
 flashplugin-installer N/A
 adobe-flashplugin N/A
 icedtea-plugin N/A
InstallationMedia: Xubuntu 10.10 "Maverick Meerkat" - Release amd64 (20101008.1)
ProcEnviron:
 LANGUAGE=ru_RU:en
 LANG=ru_RU.UTF-8
 SHELL=/bin/bash
SourcePackage: firefox
UpgradeStatus: Upgraded to natty on 2011-04-11 (43 days ago)

Revision history for this message
In , Roc-ocallahan (roc-ocallahan) wrote :

Scrolling the main GMail window is slow. It should be super fast.

One issue is that the GMail window contains an IFRAME with all the actual content. That IFRAME's viewport scrollframe is not always active, we only activate it on a timer. So when you scroll, it's flipping between active and inactive a lot, which forces repainting of the entire window a lot.

So there's a few things we could do:
1) Increase the scroll activity timeout so we don't flip between active and inactive while scrolling. In selected cases we could make the timeout infinite.
2) Item 1 means we'll be displaying non-subpixel-AA text for longer, so we should fix that for as many cases as possible (including GMail) by detecting when a transparent ThebesLayer has a solid color behind it, and making the ThebesLayer opaque with that background color. That will also speed up drawing and compositing.

Revision history for this message
In , Matjk7 (matjk7) wrote :

Roc I noticed some slow scrolling cases that happen only if you hover a particular area, for instance on http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2c/USA_New_Jersey_location_map.svg if you mouse over the image it scrolls slowly, but on the white area it scrolls fine. This seems to happen on embed youtube videos as well. Are they related to this bug or is it something else?

Revision history for this message
In , Mbeltzner (mbeltzner) wrote :

I suggest that we block final release on this; GMail's a pretty key site :)

Revision history for this message
In , Peter-vanderwoude (peter-vanderwoude) wrote :

I don't know if bug 581576 is the same issue, if so, please feel free to duplicate and make it block final release.

Revision history for this message
In , Roc-ocallahan (roc-ocallahan) wrote :

*** Bug 583038 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

Revision history for this message
In , Mbeltzner (mbeltzner) wrote :

--> beta6+

Revision history for this message
In , Andrea76 (andrea76) wrote :

me too on pre beta7

Revision history for this message
In , Andrea76 (andrea76) wrote :

please ignore my above comment

Revision history for this message
In , geeknik (brian-carpenter) wrote :

Would this bug also cover the slow scrolling on Google Reader?

Revision history for this message
In , Mbeltzner (mbeltzner) wrote :

Roc, what's our plan here going forward? Just want to make sure this doesn't fall off the radar.

Revision history for this message
In , Scott (scott001) wrote :

Is there any progress going into this bug or atleast has the cause been investigated?

Revision history for this message
In , Roc-ocallahan (roc-ocallahan) wrote :

If there had been, I would have commented.

Revision history for this message
In , Roc-ocallahan (roc-ocallahan) wrote :

The changes I mentioned in comment #0 were made in other bugs.

I tested scrolling in GMail's conversation view and folder view. During continuous scrolling, at each step we're only painting the scrollbar and the horizontal strip that was scrolled into view. This is good. It's still true even when a chat pane is open --- the chat pane is placed in its own layer, so doesn't cause extra repainting. Everything is working as designed there.

This bookmarklet:
javascript:void((function(){var%20i=0;var%20start=Date.now();function%20f(){if(++i==50){alert((Date.now()-start)+"ms");return;}document.getElementsByTagName('iframe')[4].contentWindow.scrollTo(0,i*5);setTimeout(f,10);}f();})())
is a good way of measuring GMail scrolling performance.

In a big folder view (100 threads of my Bugzilla folder), I get about 2900ms (Linux, megafast PC) without GPU acceleration. That's about 58ms per frame which is definitely not good. (With GL acceleration it's a little slower, which is probably expected on this testcase, since on this machine the X server is perfectly capable of keeping up as it composites everything asynchronously.)

Revision history for this message
In , Roc-ocallahan (roc-ocallahan) wrote :

Er, those numbers were for a debug build. For an opt build, it's 2200ms. That's still 44ms per frame, so still room for improvement!

Revision history for this message
In , Roc-ocallahan (roc-ocallahan) wrote :

Er, fail again. I was measuring a different version of the bookmarklet that scrolled through a lot more frames. With the bookmarklet above, my opt build takes about 560ms if I run the bookmarklet repeatedly, about 700ms if I wait for five seconds between each invocation (which lets the scroll activity timer expire).

So that's better than 60fps. If GMail scrolling speed is a problem, I'll need a slower machine to see it :-).

Revision history for this message
In , geeknik (brian-carpenter) wrote :

I've used the bookmarklet here and gotten 521ms. PC is running Windows 7 Pro x64, GeForce 7950GT, Core i7-920 @ 2.8ghz, 6GB DDR3, etc etc.

Revision history for this message
In , Roc-ocallahan (roc-ocallahan) wrote :

That's pretty fast. Does GMail scrolling feel fast to you in practice?

Revision history for this message
In , geeknik (brian-carpenter) wrote :

I don't have any scrolling issues with Gmail at this time.

Revision history for this message
In , Roc-ocallahan (roc-ocallahan) wrote :

On my nearly-4-year-old Macbook Pro, I get around 1200ms for 50 frames. Not bad, but less than 60fps. I'll dig into this a little more.

Revision history for this message
In , Roc-ocallahan (roc-ocallahan) wrote :

76% of the time is under _handleWindowNeedsDisplay --- painting. The rest is system/Appkit overhead plus some event firing (timeout events, scroll events).

Under painting:

16.7% under BuildDisplayListForStackingContext (display list construction)
10% under nsDisplayList::ComputeVisibilityForRoot (computing visible rects for everything)
9.3% under FrameLayerBuilder::BuildContainerLayerFor (layer construction)
2.5% under FrameLayerBuilder::WillEndTransaction (updating FrameLayerBuilder stuff)
31.7% under BasicLayerManager::EndTransaction (compositing layer tree)

Under EndTransaction:
10% painting the scrolled-into-view contents of ThebesLayers
21% drawing ThebesLayerBuffers into the destination. Almost all of that is in CGBlt_copyBytes --- memcpy.

Revision history for this message
In , Roc-ocallahan (roc-ocallahan) wrote :

Created attachment 494154
GMail folder view display list

Looking into ComputeVisibilityForRoot, the cost is all about nsDisplayClip::ComputeVisibility and the region manipulation it does.

This is a dumped display list for the GMail folder view. There are 1353 display items, of which 565 are nsDisplayClip. That seems excessive!

Revision history for this message
In , Roc-ocallahan (roc-ocallahan) wrote :

I'm going to take this off the blocker list. Scrolling GMail is not really slow at this point. If anyone disagrees, renominate with some performance data and a definition of what "slow" means :-)

Revision history for this message
In , Scott (scott001) wrote :

(In reply to comment #21)
> I'm going to take this off the blocker list. Scrolling GMail is not really slow
> at this point. If anyone disagrees, renominate with some performance data and a
> definition of what "slow" means :-)

Seems fine here, no bad scroll performance or cpu usage during scroll (even on c2d laptop). Should probably be marked as resolved??

Revision history for this message
In , Roc-ocallahan (roc-ocallahan) wrote :

I'm going to leave it open because I can still make it a bit faster and it probably is slow for someone :-)

Revision history for this message
In , Shaunld (shaunld) wrote :

Using the bookmarklet,

1. 4111 ms
2. 3944 ms
3. 3973 ms

on an i945GM, Core Duo laptop.

Revision history for this message
In , geeknik (brian-carpenter) wrote :

In comment #15, I posted a time of 521ms. I just ran the bookmarklet again, same machine, same specs and got 1035ms, 1200ms, 871ms, 1105ms and 825ms. Latest nightly build (Built from http://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/c0e05d518f57).

Revision history for this message
In , Boxerboi76 (boxerboi76) wrote :

I'm getting 1377ish consistently using build: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:2.0b10pre) Gecko/20110112 Firefox/4.0b10pre ID:20110112135818

It's jerky at times when scrolling in GMail.

~B

Revision history for this message
In , Roc-ocallahan (roc-ocallahan) wrote :

Shaun, Brian, Bryan: are you using acceleration or not?

Revision history for this message
In , geeknik (brian-carpenter) wrote :

I'm not using smooth scrolling, never liked it, and even with the scores I got from the bookmarket, it seems to scroll fine for me.

Graphics (about:support)
Adapter Description NVIDIA GeForce 7950 GT
Vendor ID 10de
Device ID 0295
Adapter RAM 256
Adapter Drivers nvd3dumx,nvd3dum
Driver Version 8.17.12.6099
Driver Date 10-16-2010
Direct2D Enabled false
DirectWrite Enabled true
WebGL Renderer TransGaming Inc. -- ANGLE -- OpenGL ES 2.0 (git-devel Jan 12 2011 04:24:03)
GPU Accelerated Windows1/1 Direct3D 9

Revision history for this message
In , Boxerboi76 (boxerboi76) wrote :

Robert, yes I'm using acceleration:

Adapter Description: NVIDIA Quadro FX 4600
Vendor ID: 10de
Device ID: 019e
Adapter RAM: Unknown
Adapter Drivers: nv4_disp
Driver Version: 6.14.12.5981
Driver Date: 9-26-2010
Direct2D Enabled: false
DirectWrite Enabled: true
WebGL Renderer: TransGaming Inc. -- ANGLE -- OpenGL ES 2.0 (git-devel Jan 11 2011 15:51:27)
GPU Accelerated Windows: 1/1 Direct3D 9

~B

Revision history for this message
In , Boxerboi76 (boxerboi76) wrote :

Let me also add that I'm not using smooth scrolling either.

~B

Revision history for this message
In , Roc-ocallahan (roc-ocallahan) wrote :

1000ms is about 50fps which is a reasonable scrolling speed.

Revision history for this message
In , Boxerboi76 (boxerboi76) wrote :

Robert, what would be the cause of the occasional jerkiness? I don't have much of anything running on this box. I also noticed that scrolling in gmail using that bookmarklet as well as with my scroll wheel sends CPU up in the high 40's percentage wise.

~B

Revision history for this message
In , Roc-ocallahan (roc-ocallahan) wrote :

I don't know, jerkiness is hard to diagnose.

Revision history for this message
In , Shaunld (shaunld) wrote :

My chipset is completely blocklisted.

Adapter Description: V1.2 Sherry Driver for 945
Vendor ID: 0000
Device ID: 27a2

Adapter RAM: Unknown
Adapter Drivers: igdumdx32 igd10umd32

Driver Version: 1.2.0.9190
Driver Date: 8-15-2010

Direct2D Enabled: false
DirectWrite Enabled: false

WebGL Renderer: TransGaming Inc. -- ANGLE -- OpenGL ES 2.0 (git-devel Jan 12 2011 04:24:03)

GPU Accelerated Windows: 0/1

(This is with all the forced options set to true)

Revision history for this message
In , geeknik (brian-carpenter) wrote :

Just retested this with an updated video card. Went from a 7950GT to an 8600GT. Not much of an upgrade, but at least it supports CUDA and DX10. =)

811ms, 770ms, 766ms, 799ms, 775ms

Adapter Description NVIDIA GeForce 8600 GT
Vendor ID 10de
Device ID 0402
Adapter RAM 256
Adapter Drivers nvd3dumx,nvwgf2umx,nvwgf2umx nvd3dum,nvwgf2um,nvwgf2um
Driver Version 8.17.12.6099
Driver Date 10-16-2010
Direct2D Enabled true
DirectWrite Enabled true
WebGL Renderer TransGaming Inc. -- ANGLE -- OpenGL ES 2.0 (git-devel Jan 13 2011 03:37:36)
GPU Accelerated Windows 2/2 Direct3D 10

Revision history for this message
In , Shaunld (shaunld) wrote :

Is there any more data I can submit (using simple tools which give reproducible results) from my entry-level setup which will help the debugging?

Revision history for this message
In , Daniel Holbert (dholbert) wrote :

(FWIW, I filed bug 629568 on another scrolling slowdown w/ layers enabled, using a bookmarklet similar to the one in this bug. That one appears to be a Linux-specific issue (or at least magnified-on-linux), hence filing a separate bug.)

Revision history for this message
In , Farley13 (farley13) wrote :

Wanted to add one note here about CPU use - on a system with not much else running, scrolling looks good to me (~900 ms using the bookmarklet) however this came at a cost of about 65% cpu usage peak. Your bookmarklet in Safari gave me ~600 ms and only a 30% cpu usage.

I can imagine some of these complaints may stem from systems under load. Moving the scroll bar around manually (vigorously!) I could get up to 90% use, Safari peaked at about 30% which eliminates running the bookmarklet as the primary cpu use.

Was using top -s 1 with 10 trials for the cpu.

Build:

Firefox Version 4.0b10 User Agent Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; rv:2.0b10) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/4.0b10 - Direct2D Enabled false | DirectWrite Enabled false WebGL Renderer ATI Technologies Inc. -- ATI Radeon X1600 OpenGL Engine -- 2.0 ATI-1.6.24GPU Accelerated Windows0/1

Safari Version 5.0.3 (6533.19.4)

Revision history for this message
In , Roc-ocallahan (roc-ocallahan) wrote :

What if you open a chat window?

Revision history for this message
In , Farley13 (farley13) wrote :

Chat window open is about the same as no chat window in Firefox. However chat window minimized look like ~100 ms more.

For whatever reason my Safari performance has tanked though and isn't so useful - it's 2700 ms now without a chat window and 3000 ms with one open. Wish I could tell you why it tanked.. (reset just about everything, restarted and shutdown as well). I'll pipe up again if things look any different.

Revision history for this message
In , coldReactive (coldreactive) wrote :

Chat Window, Pop-out chat window, Google Voice window, etc. They all don't slow down scrolling in GMail for me on Beta 11.

Revision history for this message
Dmitry Tantsur (divius) wrote :
Changed in firefox (Ubuntu):
status: New → Confirmed
Revision history for this message
In , Rjesup (rjesup) wrote :

Reading over this, I wonder if the jerkiness might be sessionstore.js saving a whole bunch of data (JSON encoding it, then saving to disk). A simple search on google can leave the tab with 200-800K of sessionstore data to save every time. Even without that, it will tend to interrupt you every few seconds.

See bug 669034 and related

Revision history for this message
In , Noisyblocks (noisyblocks) wrote :

With absolutely no evidence to support this, I'm convinced that this issue could be related to <a href="https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=680090">680090</a>...at least for certain users.

Since having upgraded to version 6 I've experienced a significant performance slowdown and hangs/freeze (spinning beach ball) sometimes every 2-3 minutes on certain websites. These sites are almost always javascript-intensive ones or sites that rely on lots of nested content (ie: iframes).

I notice this poor behavior particularly when I have many tabs open (FYI: Google maps slows to a crawl--it never used to). Is Google maps possibly something to be looking at to identify this problem? As it stands I'm having to consider reverting to 5.x...it gets so bad.

Revision history for this message
In , coldReactive (coldreactive) wrote :

(In reply to Emlyn from comment #43)
> With absolutely no evidence to support this, I'm convinced that this issue
> could be related to <a
> href="https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=680090">680090</a>...at
> least for certain users.

Since the problem has been happening since before 5.x (for me) I don't think so.

Revision history for this message
In , kmaglione (maglione-k) wrote :

*** Bug 280917 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

Revision history for this message
papukaija (papukaija) wrote :

This bug is a known upstream issue. It's mentioned in FF's release notes and also affects FF 8.0.

Revision history for this message
In , Miahzmiahz+bmo (miahzmiahz+bmo) wrote :

Scrolling in Gmail has never been super fast for me. But i could live with it. The "Old Look" with the new Preview theme scrolled my inbox at about 5000ms. With the Classic theme it scrolls about 7000ms (higher info density). CPU spikes to near 100% either way.

Currently on Firefox 8 (beta6)
MacBookPro3,1 - 2.2 GHz Core 2 Duo - GeForce 8600M GT 128MB

But now with Gmail's "New Look" they are rolling out [http://gmailblog.blogspot.com/2011/11/gmails-new-look.html], everything in Gmail seems to be slower, including scrolling. But unfortunately, the bookmarklet to test scroll speeds from Comment #12 no longer works because they changed the arrangement of frames.

Not sure if various Gmail themes or the New Look affect how this bug is approached.

Revision history for this message
In , Roc-ocallahan (roc-ocallahan) wrote :
Changed in firefox:
importance: Unknown → Medium
status: Unknown → Confirmed
Revision history for this message
In , Ehsan-mozilla (ehsan-mozilla) wrote :

Firefox 12 and 13 have shipped, no point in tracking this bug for them.

Revision history for this message
Mechanical snail (replicator-snail) wrote :

This bug was linked to the wrong bug on Mozilla Bugzilla. This bug is about a crash/hang when closing a Gmail tab. The Bugzilla bug is about jerky scrolling.

Changed in firefox:
importance: Medium → Undecided
status: Confirmed → New
Changed in firefox:
status: New → Confirmed
Changed in firefox (Ubuntu):
status: Confirmed → Incomplete
status: Incomplete → Confirmed
assignee: nobody → Manfred Walter Steffen (manfredwsteffen)
Changed in firefox:
assignee: nobody → Manfred Walter Steffen (manfredwsteffen)
papukaija (papukaija)
Changed in firefox (Ubuntu):
assignee: Manfred Walter Steffen (manfredwsteffen) → nobody
Changed in firefox:
assignee: Manfred Walter Steffen (manfredwsteffen) → nobody
Revision history for this message
ahmed mokhtar (a-mokhtar-1980) wrote :

I had the same problem on Ubuntu 13.04, and it solved after I uninstalled unity-webapps-facebookapps and unity-webapps-youtube

Revision history for this message
penalvch (penalvch) wrote :

Dmitry "Divius" Tantsur, thank you for reporting this and helping make Ubuntu better. However, your crash report is missing. Please follow these instructions to have apport report a new bug about your crash that can be dealt with by the automatic retracer. First, execute at a terminal:
cd /var/crash && sudo rm * ; sudo apt-get update && sudo apt-get -y upgrade && sudo apt-get -y install firefox-dbg && sudo service apport start force_start=1

If you are running the Ubuntu Stable Release you might need to enable apport in /etc/default/apport and restart.

Now reproduce the crash, then open your file manager, navigate to your /var/crash directory and open the crash report you wish to submit.
If this fails you will have to open a terminal and file your report with 'ubuntu-bug /var/crash/_my_crash_report.crash' where _my_crash_report.crash is the crash you would like to report. If you get an error that you aren't allowed to access this report you will have to file it with 'sudo ubuntu-bug /var/crash/_my_crash_report.crash'. If you run the command against the crash report and a window pops up asking you to report this, but then never opens a new report, you would be affected by https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/apport/+bug/994921 . In order to WORKAROUND this, one would need to open the following file via a command line:
gksudo gedit /etc/apport/crashdb.conf

and comment out the line:
'problem_types': ['Bug', 'Package'],

by changing it to:
# 'problem_types': ['Bug', 'Package'],

Save, close, and try to file the crash report again via:
ubuntu-bug /var/crash/_my_crash_report.crash

Please follow https://wiki.ubuntu.com/MozillaTeam/Bugs when you file this crash report so the necessary information is provided.

I'm closing this bug report since the process outlined above will automatically open a new bug report which can then dealt with more efficiently.

Thank you for your understanding.

Helpful bug reporting tips:
https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ReportingBugs

no longer affects: firefox (Ubuntu)
affects: firefox → firefox (Ubuntu)
Changed in firefox (Ubuntu):
status: Confirmed → Invalid
To post a comment you must log in.
This report contains Public information  
Everyone can see this information.

Other bug subscribers

Remote bug watches

Bug watches keep track of this bug in other bug trackers.