From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail-wm1-x334.google.com (mail-wm1-x334.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::334]) by hurricane.the-brannons.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3D43978835 for ; Sun, 8 Dec 2019 08:57:21 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-wm1-x334.google.com with SMTP id p17so12337138wmi.3 for ; Sun, 08 Dec 2019 08:57:21 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=5oYOjJ0bztaWHNdw0r6/3eeRt5HRs+BtZJ5XeGakueA=; b=g24Sjen4x7DYP9ckWPaRrMfIahMJh0aIiN2HJ1ryQNgV9EaI49hbDYtueW6cSuKXHg /w5T6BOEjSZS434+DnRYdRq0hQPFIDxQx45XnJKjxR6+0Vze34oUloysz4somM9bAv6w OVrC/p0pl8jb50RSpZKjw932EJ5SDdT05uUs081DYIpJ49k46fuqvcd/F1BCKD/vypcu +DrXPpqsW8c0+0gx2zPjwyBmigUXMf0f0cO/fJrBgCoQdTxIlP3QtfuNld9lrHKoDNyg Ab+em8FR5wPoA1GPk3G5Z+6q6hCsCbbzkvVBQtqNKwGhkyDAqTa/rAB0jUApfAIqq3t9 AWEQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=5oYOjJ0bztaWHNdw0r6/3eeRt5HRs+BtZJ5XeGakueA=; b=Y+5kSGxkM2HxoyoXipdBNwZsuuIXy7nKuxu5+iz2ukhpVIHDF9HZGutXbmfL2F3NtZ F0TYiSPhYRso5KGArImZhcJRi6mMsKb0u7EmDPBFdZj+z9ffD/aXajF35OQHH+ogBwPg 8JvTcntnHxbWqhUJsRC5ulMJcDCLqjTqgutbkmakgpNVvzDCjjilJ55OxWiBS/A5XTpB UMItFuaZDg3gyJFxriG1vTib2tiVB1hZ9nbL+h8CP0Ow92HpJfIDxOPMGH19GKdwG4Kl Xd/OJwexrV+/6MdQKRDwXG+Kq0+OljyePWVNaV6X1UhJ43V2xgsfKqyitdxN9lv5jyJU 3WUg== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAUtVtAX1fCv1nik0t3H9aoD/0FIdBAAuMFywhVCTZNimmp6uZ5H 10opmwUlXb9MxdwjtJEn9fs= X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqz0RrVKmrUZ2tlSzXvQvr17NfqEY1zuHmUNnobCbl8jHGiOH+hKSIopxCH14qOMVdqGNONJ7A== X-Received: by 2002:a05:600c:2c44:: with SMTP id r4mr8354313wmg.140.1575824239244; Sun, 08 Dec 2019 08:57:19 -0800 (PST) Received: from toaster (a.5.9.3.b.f.e.f.f.f.4.4.2.d.a.2.2.4.0.9.2.4.1.1.0.b.8.0.1.0.0.2.ip6.arpa. [2001:8b0:1142:9042:2ad2:44ff:fefb:395a]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id z18sm10449900wmf.21.2019.12.08.08.57.18 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Sun, 08 Dec 2019 08:57:18 -0800 (PST) Date: Sun, 8 Dec 2019 16:57:16 +0000 From: Adam Thompson To: Karl Dahlke Cc: edbrowse-dev@edbrowse.org Subject: Re: [edbrowse-dev] Abort from within duktape when visiting... Message-ID: <20191208165716.GG194728@toaster> References: <20191207172853.GB194728@toaster> <20191208135333.GF194728@toaster> <20191108102636.eklhad@comcast.net> X-BeenThere: edbrowse-dev@edbrowse.org List-Id: Edbrowse Development List MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20191108102636.eklhad@comcast.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.12.2 (2019-09-21) On Sun, Dec 08, 2019 at 10:26:36AM -0500, Karl Dahlke wrote: > Yes, we didn't need the 20 thousand lines of output, just the last line, as it does what I thought it might be doing, starting a low level calland not finishing it. > core dumps and gdb won't help, even if you did have the duktape symbols, it is a deliberate abort because of some runtime issue not protected. Yeah, but when I first saw the error I wasn't sure where it'd blown up. Anyway that was my reading of the output. > I've sometimes thought I have to protect *every* duktape call we make, but so much overhead, in software and in performance. > Not sure what to do about that. Hmmm, not sure. I can see something to be said for protecting all the duktape calls but I'm not sure how we can contain them in something where we can avoid all the extra code. How large is the overhead of these in reality? > As a verification you can comment out html.c line 926 and it runs. > I don't just want to protect the call set_property_string, though I may have to, I'd really like to know what is going wrong here. > In jdb, try setting document.readyState = "complete" > This is protected so won't core dump, but neither does it show any errors, even with dberr, and neither does it change the value of readyState, > so the web page has done something to it. > either it's not a string any more (getter setter), or it is not writeable. Should that be allowed or can we make that something only we can change? >From what I've read I'm not sure why scripts would be touching this or if they should even be allowed to. Cheers, Adam.