--- /root/PatchLeaks-main/products/firefox_downloads/FIREFOX_RELEASE_97_END/firefox-FIREFOX_RELEASE_97_END/gfx/layers/apz/test/gtest/TestBasic.cpp+++ /root/PatchLeaks-main/products/firefox_downloads/FIREFOX_RELEASE_98_END/firefox-FIREFOX_RELEASE_98_END/gfx/layers/apz/test/gtest/TestBasic.cpp@@ -8,6 +8,8 @@ #include "APZTestCommon.h" #include "InputUtils.h"++static ScrollGenerationCounter sGenerationCounter; TEST_F(APZCBasicTester, Overzoom) {   // the visible area of the document in CSS pixels is x=10 y=0 w=100 h=100@@ -228,7 +230,8 @@   mainThreadOffset.y -= 5;   metadata = apzc->GetScrollMetadata();   metadata.GetMetrics().SetVisualDestination(mainThreadOffset);-  metadata.GetMetrics().SetScrollGeneration(ScrollGeneration::New());+  metadata.GetMetrics().SetScrollGeneration(+      sGenerationCounter.NewMainThreadGeneration());   metadata.GetMetrics().SetVisualScrollUpdateType(FrameMetrics::eMainThread);   scrollUpdates.Clear();   metadata.SetScrollUpdates(scrollUpdates);

Let me analyze the code diff for potential security vulnerabilities:

1. Vulnerability Existed: not sure
    [Potential Thread Safety Issue] [gfx/layers/apz/test/gtest/TestBasic.cpp] [Lines 8, 230-231]
    [Old Code]
    metadata.GetMetrics().SetScrollGeneration(ScrollGeneration::New());
    [Fixed Code]
    metadata.GetMetrics().SetScrollGeneration(
        sGenerationCounter.NewMainThreadGeneration());

Additional Details:
- The change introduces a static counter `sGenerationCounter` and uses it for scroll generation instead of creating new ones each time
- This could be related to thread safety, as the counter is now shared across tests
- However, since this is test code, the security implications might be minimal
- The exact vulnerability classification is unclear without more context about how this counter is used

Note: This appears to be a test file, so security vulnerabilities in production code might not be present here. The change seems to be more about test reliability/maintainability than security.

If an attacker could control the contents of an iframe sandboxed with <code>allow-popups</code> but not <code>allow-scripts</code>, they were able to craft a link that, when clicked, would lead to JavaScript execution in violation of the sandbox. This vulnerability affects Firefox < 98, Firefox ESR < 91.7, and Thunderbird < 91.7.

--- /root/PatchLeaks-main/products/firefox_downloads/FIREFOX_RELEASE_97_END/firefox-FIREFOX_RELEASE_97_END/third_party/rust/wgpu-types/.cargo-checksum.json+++ /root/PatchLeaks-main/products/firefox_downloads/FIREFOX_RELEASE_98_END/firefox-FIREFOX_RELEASE_98_END/third_party/rust/wgpu-types/.cargo-checksum.json@@ -1 +1 @@-{"files":{"Cargo.toml":"3bae87ce1b636a0be01049069250c8bb4719e3188d5445af5494f897b5770b7a","src/lib.rs":"e4534dafd275e3b857d0d527a8995401d19da86c096abb47dd0313cdd0afec46"},"package":null}+{"files":{"Cargo.toml":"742abe387ad0a6b054a3e525040ff1e64f16072ae7cd305db0616beaa844e389","src/lib.rs":"d6f763ad1a62d23b0d733f3943012a59b313a8e96973774ba84a25f322e6df3e"},"package":null}=========testing/web-platform/tests/html/canvas/offscreen/the-offscreen-canvas/initial.reset.different.worker.js========--- /root/PatchLeaks-main/products/firefox_downloads/FIREFOX_RELEASE_97_END/firefox-FIREFOX_RELEASE_97_END/testing/web-platform/tests/html/canvas/offscreen/the-offscreen-canvas/initial.reset.different.worker.js+++ /root/PatchLeaks-main/products/firefox_downloads/FIREFOX_RELEASE_98_END/firefox-FIREFOX_RELEASE_98_END/testing/web-platform/tests/html/canvas/offscreen/the-offscreen-canvas/initial.reset.different.worker.js@@ -13,14 +13,14 @@ }); t.step(function() {-var offscreenCanvas = new OffscreenCanvas(100, 50);-var ctx = offscreenCanvas.getContext('2d');+var canvas = new OffscreenCanvas(100, 50);+var ctx = canvas.getContext('2d'); ctx.fillStyle = '#f00'; ctx.fillRect(0, 0, 50, 50);-_assertPixel(offscreenCanvas, 20,20, 255,0,0,255, "20,20", "255,0,0,255");-offscreenCanvas.width = 50;-_assertPixel(offscreenCanvas, 20,20, 0,0,0,0, "20,20", "0,0,0,0");+_assertPixel(canvas, 20,20, 255,0,0,255, "20,20", "255,0,0,255");+canvas.width = 50;+_assertPixel(canvas, 20,20, 0,0,0,0, "20,20", "0,0,0,0"); t.done(); });

Here's the analysis of the provided code diff for security fixes:

1. Vulnerability Existed: no
   No specific vulnerability found [third_party/rust/wgpu-types/.cargo-checksum.json] [Lines 1-1]
   Old Code: {"files":{"Cargo.toml":"3bae87ce1b636a0be01049069250c8bb4719e3188d5445af5494f897b5770b7a","src/lib.rs":"e4534dafd275e3b857d0d527a8995401d19da86c096abb47dd0313cdd0afec46"},"package":null}
   Fixed Code: {"files":{"Cargo.toml":"742abe387ad0a6b054a3e525040ff1e64f16072ae7cd305db0616beaa844e389","src/lib.rs":"d6f763ad1a62d23b0d733f3943012a59b313a8e96973774ba84a25f322e6df3e"},"package":null}
   Additional Details: This appears to be a routine checksum update for Rust package files, which doesn't indicate any security vulnerability.

2. Vulnerability Existed: no
   No specific vulnerability found [testing/web-platform/tests/html/canvas/offscreen/the-offscreen-canvas/initial.reset.different.worker.js] [Lines 13-21]
   Old Code: var offscreenCanvas = new OffscreenCanvas(100, 50);
   var ctx = offscreenCanvas.getContext('2d');
   ctx.fillStyle = '#f00';
   ctx.fillRect(0, 0, 50, 50);
   _assertPixel(offscreenCanvas, 20,20, 255,0,0,255, "20,20", "255,0,0,255");
   offscreenCanvas.width = 50;
   _assertPixel(offscreenCanvas, 20,20, 0,0,0,0, "20,20", "0,0,0,0");
   Fixed Code: var canvas = new OffscreenCanvas(100, 50);
   var ctx = canvas.getContext('2d');
   ctx.fillStyle = '#f00';
   ctx.fillRect(0, 0, 50, 50);
   _assertPixel(canvas, 20,20, 255,0,0,255, "20,20", "255,0,0,255");
   canvas.width = 50;
   _assertPixel(canvas, 20,20, 0,0,0,0, "20,20", "0,0,0,0");
   Additional Details: This change appears to be a simple variable renaming (offscreenCanvas → canvas) in a test file, which doesn't indicate any security vulnerability.

If an attacker could control the contents of an iframe sandboxed with <code>allow-popups</code> but not <code>allow-scripts</code>, they were able to craft a link that, when clicked, would lead to JavaScript execution in violation of the sandbox. This vulnerability affects Firefox < 98, Firefox ESR < 91.7, and Thunderbird < 91.7.

--- /root/PatchLeaks-main/products/firefox_downloads/FIREFOX_RELEASE_97_END/firefox-FIREFOX_RELEASE_97_END/layout/style/CounterStyleManager.cpp+++ /root/PatchLeaks-main/products/firefox_downloads/FIREFOX_RELEASE_98_END/firefox-FIREFOX_RELEASE_98_END/layout/style/CounterStyleManager.cpp@@ -1681,10 +1681,8 @@       GetPad(pad);       int32_t diff =           pad.width --          narrow_cast<int32_t>(-              unicode::CountGraphemeClusters(initialText.Data(),-                                             initialText.Length()) +-              unicode::CountGraphemeClusters(aResult.Data(), aResult.Length()));+          narrow_cast<int32_t>(unicode::CountGraphemeClusters(initialText) ++                               unicode::CountGraphemeClusters(aResult));       if (diff > 0) {         auto length = pad.symbol.Length();         if (diff > LENGTH_LIMIT || length > LENGTH_LIMIT ||

Here's the analysis of the provided code diff:

Vulnerability Existed: not sure
Potential Integer Overflow [File] layout/style/CounterStyleManager.cpp [Lines 1681-1688]
[Old Code]
      int32_t diff =
          pad.width -
          narrow_cast<int32_t>(
              unicode::CountGraphemeClusters(initialText.Data(),
                                             initialText.Length()) +
              unicode::CountGraphemeClusters(aResult.Data(), aResult.Length()));
[Fixed Code]
      int32_t diff =
          pad.width -
          narrow_cast<int32_t>(unicode::CountGraphemeClusters(initialText) +
                               unicode::CountGraphemeClusters(aResult));

Additional Details:
The change simplifies the grapheme cluster counting by using direct string references rather than separate Data() and Length() calls. While this improves code maintainability, it's unclear if there was a specific security vulnerability being fixed. The potential concern in the old code might be related to integer overflow when summing the cluster counts before the narrow_cast, but the fix doesn't explicitly address this. The change appears to be more of a refactoring than a security fix.

If an attacker could control the contents of an iframe sandboxed with <code>allow-popups</code> but not <code>allow-scripts</code>, they were able to craft a link that, when clicked, would lead to JavaScript execution in violation of the sandbox. This vulnerability affects Firefox < 98, Firefox ESR < 91.7, and Thunderbird < 91.7.

--- /root/PatchLeaks-main/products/firefox_downloads/FIREFOX_RELEASE_97_END/firefox-FIREFOX_RELEASE_97_END/mobile/android/geckoview/src/main/java/org/mozilla/geckoview/GeckoView.java+++ /root/PatchLeaks-main/products/firefox_downloads/FIREFOX_RELEASE_98_END/firefox-FIREFOX_RELEASE_98_END/mobile/android/geckoview/src/main/java/org/mozilla/geckoview/GeckoView.java@@ -300,7 +300,7 @@   @Retention(RetentionPolicy.SOURCE)   @IntDef({BACKEND_SURFACE_VIEW, BACKEND_TEXTURE_VIEW})-  /* protected */ @interface ViewBackend {}+  public @interface ViewBackend {}   /**    * Set which view should be used by this GeckoView instance to display content.@@ -560,10 +560,16 @@     if (mSession != null) {       final GeckoRuntime runtime = mSession.getRuntime();       if (runtime != null) {-        // onConfigurationChanged is not called for 180 degree orientation changes,-        // we will miss such rotations and the screen orientation will not be-        // updated.-        runtime.orientationChanged(newConfig.orientation);+        if (Build.VERSION.SDK_INT < Build.VERSION_CODES.JELLY_BEAN_MR1) {+          // onConfigurationChanged is not called for 180 degree orientation changes,+          // we will miss such rotations and the screen orientation will not be+          // updated.+          //+          // If API is 17+, we use DisplayManager API to detect all degree+          // orientation change.+          runtime.orientationChanged(newConfig.orientation);+        }+         runtime.configurationChanged(newConfig);       }     }@@ -711,7 +717,7 @@   }   @Override-  public void dispatchDraw(final Canvas canvas) {+  public void dispatchDraw(final @Nullable Canvas canvas) {     super.dispatchDraw(canvas);     if (mSession != null) {

Analyzing the provided code diff for security fixes:

1. First Change:
    Vulnerability Existed: no
    Annotation Visibility Change [File] [Lines 300-300]
    [Old Code]
    /* protected */ @interface ViewBackend {}
    [Fixed Code]
    public @interface ViewBackend {}

    Additional Details: This appears to be a visibility modification of an annotation interface, which doesn't appear to have security implications.

2. Second Change:
    Vulnerability Existed: not sure
    Potential Orientation Handling Issue [File] [Lines 560-568]
    [Old Code]
    // onConfigurationChanged is not called for 180 degree orientation changes,
    // we will miss such rotations and the screen orientation will not be
    // updated.
    runtime.orientationChanged(newConfig.orientation);
    [Fixed Code]
    if (Build.VERSION.SDK_INT < Build.VERSION_CODES.JELLY_BEAN_MR1) {
      // onConfigurationChanged is not called for 180 degree orientation changes,
      // we will miss such rotations and the screen orientation will not be
      // updated.
      //
      // If API is 17+, we use DisplayManager API to detect all degree
      // orientation change.
      runtime.orientationChanged(newConfig.orientation);
    }

    Additional Details: This change adds version checking for orientation handling. While not clearly a security fix, it might relate to proper screen state handling which could have security implications in certain contexts (like screen content protection).

3. Third Change:
    Vulnerability Existed: no
    Nullable Annotation Addition [File] [Lines 711-711]
    [Old Code]
    public void dispatchDraw(final Canvas canvas) {
    [Fixed Code]
    public void dispatchDraw(final @Nullable Canvas canvas) {

    Additional Details: This adds a @Nullable annotation to a parameter, which improves code safety but doesn't appear to address any specific security vulnerability.

If an attacker could control the contents of an iframe sandboxed with <code>allow-popups</code> but not <code>allow-scripts</code>, they were able to craft a link that, when clicked, would lead to JavaScript execution in violation of the sandbox. This vulnerability affects Firefox < 98, Firefox ESR < 91.7, and Thunderbird < 91.7.

--- /root/PatchLeaks-main/products/firefox_downloads/FIREFOX_RELEASE_97_END/firefox-FIREFOX_RELEASE_97_END/js/src/jit-test/tests/wasm/spec/spec/directives.txt+++ /root/PatchLeaks-main/products/firefox_downloads/FIREFOX_RELEASE_98_END/firefox-FIREFOX_RELEASE_98_END/js/src/jit-test/tests/wasm/spec/spec/directives.txt@@ -1 +1 @@-|jit-test| test-also=--wasm-compiler=optimizing; test-also=--wasm-compiler=baseline; test-also=--test-wasm-await-tier2; test-also=--disable-wasm-huge-memory; skip-variant-if: --disable-wasm-huge-memory, !wasmHugeMemorySupported(); local-include:harness/harness.js+|jit-test| test-also=--wasm-compiler=optimizing; test-also=--wasm-compiler=baseline; test-also=--test-wasm-await-tier2; test-also=--disable-wasm-huge-memory; skip-variant-if: --disable-wasm-huge-memory, !wasmHugeMemorySupported(); local-include:harness/harness.js; test-also=--enable-avx; skip-variant-if: --enable-avx, !isAvxPresent()=========testing/web-platform/tests/css/selectors/old-tests/css3-modsel-74.xml========--- /root/PatchLeaks-main/products/firefox_downloads/FIREFOX_RELEASE_97_END/firefox-FIREFOX_RELEASE_97_END/testing/web-platform/tests/css/selectors/old-tests/css3-modsel-74.xml+++ /root/PatchLeaks-main/products/firefox_downloads/FIREFOX_RELEASE_98_END/firefox-FIREFOX_RELEASE_98_END/testing/web-platform/tests/css/selectors/old-tests/css3-modsel-74.xml@@ -11,7 +11,6 @@ ]]></style>   <link rel="author" title="Daniel Glazman" href="http://glazman.org/"/>   <link rel="help" href="https://www.w3.org/TR/css3-selectors/#selectors"/> <!-- bogus link to make sure it gets found -->-  <meta name="flags" content="" />  </head>  <body> <ul>

I'll analyze the provided code diff for security fixes according to the specified format.

1. First diff (directives.txt):
    Vulnerability Existed: no
    No specific vulnerability found in this change. The modification adds AVX-related test flags and conditions, which appears to be a test configuration update rather than a security fix.

2. Second diff (css3-modsel-74.xml):
    Vulnerability Existed: not sure
    [Potential Information Disclosure] [testing/web-platform/tests/css/selectors/old-tests/css3-modsel-74.xml] [Line 11]
    [Old Code: <meta name="flags" content="" />]
    [Fixed Code: (removed)]
    Additional Details: The removal of an empty meta flags tag might be related to preventing potential information disclosure or reducing unnecessary metadata, but without more context, this is uncertain. Empty meta tags could potentially be used to fingerprint browsers or expose implementation details.

Note: Neither diff shows clear evidence of security vulnerabilities being fixed. The changes appear to be either test configuration updates or minor cleanup. The second change might have security implications but it's not definitive.

If an attacker could control the contents of an iframe sandboxed with <code>allow-popups</code> but not <code>allow-scripts</code>, they were able to craft a link that, when clicked, would lead to JavaScript execution in violation of the sandbox. This vulnerability affects Firefox < 98, Firefox ESR < 91.7, and Thunderbird < 91.7.

--- /root/PatchLeaks-main/products/firefox_downloads/FIREFOX_RELEASE_97_END/firefox-FIREFOX_RELEASE_97_END/testing/web-platform/tests/html/canvas/offscreen/filters/2d.filter.canvasFilterObject.componentTransfer.table.html+++ /root/PatchLeaks-main/products/firefox_downloads/FIREFOX_RELEASE_98_END/firefox-FIREFOX_RELEASE_98_END/testing/web-platform/tests/html/canvas/offscreen/filters/2d.filter.canvasFilterObject.componentTransfer.table.html@@ -17,8 +17,8 @@ }); t.step(function() {-var offscreenCanvas = new OffscreenCanvas(100, 50);-var ctx = offscreenCanvas.getContext('2d');+var canvas = new OffscreenCanvas(100, 50);+var ctx = canvas.getContext('2d'); // From https://www.w3.org/TR/SVG11/filters.html#feComponentTransferElement function getTransformedValue(C, V) {@@ -59,7 +59,7 @@     let outputColor = getColor(color, [tableValuesR, tableValuesG, tableValuesB]);     ctx.fillStyle = `rgb(${color[0]}, ${color[1]}, ${color[2]})`;     ctx.fillRect(0, 0, 10, 10);-    _assertPixelApprox(offscreenCanvas, 5, 5, outputColor[0],outputColor[1],outputColor[2],255, "5,5", `${outputColor[0]},${outputColor[1]},${outputColor[2]}`, 2);+    _assertPixelApprox(canvas, 5, 5, outputColor[0],outputColor[1],outputColor[2],255, "5,5", `${outputColor[0]},${outputColor[1]},${outputColor[2]}`, 2); } t.done()

Analyzing the provided code diff, here's the security assessment:

1. Vulnerability Existed: no
The diff shows only variable renaming from `offscreenCanvas` to `canvas` and corresponding updates to variable references. No security vulnerabilities are introduced or fixed in this change.

2. Vulnerability Existed: no
The changes in lines 59 involve updating the variable name in the `_assertPixelApprox` call to match the renamed variable. This is purely a code style/consistency change with no security implications.

The changes appear to be purely refactoring for consistency/readability rather than addressing any security issues. The functionality remains identical, just using a different variable name.

No security vulnerabilities were identified in this diff. The changes are:
- Variable renaming (`offscreenCanvas` → `canvas`)
- Corresponding updates to variable references
- No changes to actual functionality or security-relevant code

If an attacker could control the contents of an iframe sandboxed with <code>allow-popups</code> but not <code>allow-scripts</code>, they were able to craft a link that, when clicked, would lead to JavaScript execution in violation of the sandbox. This vulnerability affects Firefox < 98, Firefox ESR < 91.7, and Thunderbird < 91.7.

--- /root/PatchLeaks-main/products/firefox_downloads/FIREFOX_RELEASE_97_END/firefox-FIREFOX_RELEASE_97_END/devtools/docs/contributor/tests/writing-perf-tests.md+++ /root/PatchLeaks-main/products/firefox_downloads/FIREFOX_RELEASE_98_END/firefox-FIREFOX_RELEASE_98_END/devtools/docs/contributor/tests/writing-perf-tests.md@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@ # Writing new DAMP performance tests-See [DAMP Performance tests](performance-tests.md) for an overall description of our performance tests.+See [DAMP Performance tests](performance-tests-damp.md) for an overall description of our performance tests. Here, we will describe how to write a new test and register it to run in DAMP. ```note::@@ -16,8 +16,8 @@ ``` This page contains the general documentation for writing DAMP tests. See also:-- [Performance test writing example](./writing-perf-tests-example.html) for a practical example of creating a new test-- [Performance test writing tips](./writing-perf-tests-tips.html) for detailed tips on how to write a good and efficient test+- [Performance test writing example](writing-perf-tests-example.md) for a practical example of creating a new test+- [Performance test writing tips](writing-perf-tests-tips.md) for detailed tips on how to write a good and efficient test ## Test location

After analyzing the provided code diff, I don't identify any security vulnerabilities as this appears to be documentation changes (markdown files) with updated file references and links. Here's the structured response:

Vulnerability Existed: no
[No security vulnerability found] [devtools/docs/contributor/tests/writing-perf-tests.md] [Lines 1,16]
[Old Code]
-See [DAMP Performance tests](performance-tests.md) for an overall description of our performance tests.
- [Performance test writing example](./writing-perf-tests-example.html)
- [Performance test writing tips](./writing-perf-tests-tips.html)
[Fixed Code]
+See [DAMP Performance tests](performance-tests-damp.md) for an overall description of our performance tests.
+ [Performance test writing example](writing-perf-tests-example.md)
+ [Performance test writing tips](writing-perf-tests-tips.md)

The changes consist of:
1. Updating a markdown file reference from "performance-tests.md" to "performance-tests-damp.md"
2. Changing file extensions from ".html" to ".md" for documentation links
3. Removing "./" prefix from some links

These are documentation improvements with no security implications.

If an attacker could control the contents of an iframe sandboxed with <code>allow-popups</code> but not <code>allow-scripts</code>, they were able to craft a link that, when clicked, would lead to JavaScript execution in violation of the sandbox. This vulnerability affects Firefox < 98, Firefox ESR < 91.7, and Thunderbird < 91.7.

--- /root/PatchLeaks-main/products/firefox_downloads/FIREFOX_RELEASE_97_END/firefox-FIREFOX_RELEASE_97_END/toolkit/components/search/tests/xpcshell/test_engine_selector.js+++ /root/PatchLeaks-main/products/firefox_downloads/FIREFOX_RELEASE_98_END/firefox-FIREFOX_RELEASE_98_END/toolkit/components/search/tests/xpcshell/test_engine_selector.js@@ -23,6 +23,14 @@         webExtension: {           locales: ["$USER_LOCALE"],         },+        telemetryId: "foo-$USER_LOCALE",+      },+      {+        included: { regions: ["fr"] },+        webExtension: {+          locales: ["$USER_REGION"],+        },+        telemetryId: "bar-$USER_REGION",       },     ],   },@@ -71,10 +79,12 @@ const engineSelector = new SearchEngineSelector();-add_task(async function() {+add_task(async function setup() {   const settings = await RemoteSettings(SearchUtils.SETTINGS_KEY);   sinon.stub(settings, "get").returns(TEST_CONFIG);+});+add_task(async function test_engine_selector() {   let {     engines,     privateDefault,@@ -135,3 +145,55 @@     "Should set altavista as privateDefault"   ); });++add_task(async function test_locale_region_replacement() {+  let { engines } = await engineSelector.fetchEngineConfiguration({+    locale: "en-US",+    region: "us",+  });+  let engine = engines.find(e => e.engineName == "aol");+  Assert.equal(+    engine.webExtension.locale,+    "en-US",+    "The locale is correctly inserted into the locale field"+  );+  Assert.equal(+    engine.telemetryId,+    "foo-en-US",+    "The locale is correctly inserted into the telemetryId"+  );++  ({ engines } = await engineSelector.fetchEngineConfiguration({+    locale: "it",+    region: "us",+  }));+  engine = engines.find(e => e.engineName == "aol");++  Assert.equal(+    engines.find(e => e.engineName == "aol").webExtension.locale,+    "it",+    "The locale is correctly inserted into the locale field"+  );+  Assert.equal(+    engine.telemetryId,+    "foo-it",+    "The locale is correctly inserted into the telemetryId"+  );++  ({ engines } = await engineSelector.fetchEngineConfiguration({+    locale: "en-CA",+    region: "fr",+  }));+  engine = engines.find(e => e.engineName == "aol");++  Assert.equal(+    engines.find(e => e.engineName == "aol").webExtension.locale,+    "fr",+    "The region is correctly inserted into the locale field"+  );+  Assert.equal(+    engine.telemetryId,+    "bar-fr",+    "The region is correctly inserted into the telemetryId"+  );+});

Based on the provided code diff, I'll analyze it for potential security vulnerabilities:

1. Vulnerability Existed: not sure
[Potential Information Leakage] [toolkit/components/search/tests/xpcshell/test_engine_selector.js] [Lines 23-31]
[Old Code]
        webExtension: {
          locales: ["$USER_LOCALE"],
        },
[Fixed Code]
        webExtension: {
          locales: ["$USER_LOCALE"],
        },
        telemetryId: "foo-$USER_LOCALE",
      },
      {
        included: { regions: ["fr"] },
        webExtension: {
          locales: ["$USER_REGION"],
        },
        telemetryId: "bar-$USER_REGION",

Additional Details: The change adds telemetry IDs that include user locale and region information. While this appears to be test code, if similar patterns were used in production, it could potentially lead to information leakage through telemetry. However, since this is test code, the actual risk is unclear.

2. Vulnerability Existed: no
[Test Code Restructuring] [toolkit/components/search/tests/xpcshell/test_engine_selector.js] [Lines 71-79]
[Old Code]
const engineSelector = new SearchEngineSelector();

add_task(async function() {
  const settings = await RemoteSettings(SearchUtils.SETTINGS_KEY);
  sinon.stub(settings, "get").returns(TEST_CONFIG);
[Fixed Code]
const engineSelector = new SearchEngineSelector();

add_task(async function setup() {
  const settings = await RemoteSettings(SearchUtils.SETTINGS_KEY);
  sinon.stub(settings, "get").returns(TEST_CONFIG);
});

add_task(async function test_engine_selector() {

Additional Details: This change appears to be purely about test code organization, splitting setup from test cases. No security implications are evident.

3. Vulnerability Existed: no
[Test Case Addition] [toolkit/components/search/tests/xpcshell/test_engine_selector.js] [Lines 135-145]
[Old Code]
    "Should set altavista as privateDefault"
  );
});
[Fixed Code]
    "Should set altavista as privateDefault"
  );
});

add_task(async function test_locale_region_replacement() {

Additional Details: The added test cases verify proper handling of locale and region replacements. This is test code verifying functionality, not introducing any security vulnerabilities.

The changes appear to be primarily focused on:
1. Adding new test configurations
2. Restructuring test code
3. Adding new test cases for locale/region handling

While there's a theoretical concern about potential information leakage through telemetry IDs (first item), this appears to be test code and not production implementation. No clear security vulnerabilities are introduced by these changes.

If an attacker could control the contents of an iframe sandboxed with <code>allow-popups</code> but not <code>allow-scripts</code>, they were able to craft a link that, when clicked, would lead to JavaScript execution in violation of the sandbox. This vulnerability affects Firefox < 98, Firefox ESR < 91.7, and Thunderbird < 91.7.

--- /root/PatchLeaks-main/products/firefox_downloads/FIREFOX_RELEASE_97_END/firefox-FIREFOX_RELEASE_97_END/testing/web-platform/tests/generic-sensor/generic-sensor-iframe-tests.sub.js+++ /root/PatchLeaks-main/products/firefox_downloads/FIREFOX_RELEASE_98_END/firefox-FIREFOX_RELEASE_98_END/testing/web-platform/tests/generic-sensor/generic-sensor-iframe-tests.sub.js@@ -155,4 +155,32 @@     iframe.parentNode.removeChild(iframe);     window.focus();   }, `${sensorName}: losing a document's frame with an active sensor does not crash`);++  sensor_test(async t => {+    assert_implements(sensorName in self, `${sensorName} is not supported.`);+    const iframe = document.createElement('iframe');+    iframe.allow = featurePolicies.join(';') + ';';+    iframe.src = 'https://{{host}}:{{ports[https][0]}}/generic-sensor/resources/iframe_sensor_handler.html';++    // Create sensor in the iframe (we do not care whether this is a+    // cross-origin nested context in this test).+    const iframeLoadWatcher = new EventWatcher(t, iframe, 'load');+    document.body.appendChild(iframe);+    await iframeLoadWatcher.wait_for('load');++    // The purpose of this message is to initialize the mock backend in the+    // iframe. We are not going to use the sensor created there.+    await send_message_to_iframe(iframe, {command: 'create_sensor',+                                          type: sensorName});++    const iframeSensor = new iframe.contentWindow[sensorName]();+    assert_not_equals(iframeSensor, null);++    // Remove iframe from main document. |iframeSensor| no longer has a+    // non-null browsing context. Calling start() should probably throw an+    // error when called from a non-fully active document, but that depends on+    // https://github.com/w3c/sensors/issues/415+    iframe.parentNode.removeChild(iframe);+    iframeSensor.start();+  }, `${sensorName}: calling start() in a non-fully active document does not crash`); }

Here's the analysis of the provided code diff following the specified format:

1. Vulnerability Existed: not sure  
   [Potential Cross-Origin Resource Sharing Issue] [testing/web-platform/tests/generic-sensor/generic-sensor-iframe-tests.sub.js] [Lines 155-187]  
   [Old Code] (No test case for handling sensors in non-fully active documents)  
   [Fixed Code] (Added test case for handling sensor.start() in non-fully active documents)  
   Additional Details: The diff adds a test case to verify behavior when calling start() on a sensor after its iframe has been removed. While this isn't a direct vulnerability fix, it tests for potential security implications of sensor operations in non-fully active contexts.

2. Vulnerability Existed: not sure  
   [Potential Feature Policy Bypass] [testing/web-platform/tests/generic-sensor/generic-sensor-iframe-tests.sub.js] [Lines 158-160]  
   [Old Code] (No explicit test for feature policy enforcement in removed iframes)  
   [Fixed Code] (Added test that creates sensor in iframe then removes iframe before operation)  
   Additional Details: The new test case could be related to ensuring feature policies are properly enforced even when the document becomes inactive, though this isn't explicitly stated.

Note: The diff appears to be adding test cases rather than fixing actual vulnerabilities. The test cases seem designed to verify proper behavior in edge cases that could potentially lead to security issues if not handled correctly. Without more context about the actual implementation changes in the browser, it's difficult to identify specific vulnerabilities that were fixed.

If an attacker could control the contents of an iframe sandboxed with <code>allow-popups</code> but not <code>allow-scripts</code>, they were able to craft a link that, when clicked, would lead to JavaScript execution in violation of the sandbox. This vulnerability affects Firefox < 98, Firefox ESR < 91.7, and Thunderbird < 91.7.

--- /root/PatchLeaks-main/products/firefox_downloads/FIREFOX_RELEASE_97_END/firefox-FIREFOX_RELEASE_97_END/testing/web-platform/tests/css/css-tables/subpixel-table-cell-width-002.html+++ /root/PatchLeaks-main/products/firefox_downloads/FIREFOX_RELEASE_98_END/firefox-FIREFOX_RELEASE_98_END/testing/web-platform/tests/css/css-tables/subpixel-table-cell-width-002.html@@ -2,7 +2,6 @@ <link rel="author" title="David Grogan" href="[email protected]"> <link rel="help" href="https://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/cascade.html#value-stages"> <link rel="match" href="subpixel-table-cell-width-001-ref.html">-<meta name="flags" content="" /> <meta name="assert" content="When a cell has a specified percent width that results in a fractional used width, the cell's actual width should match that of a block whose specified fixed width is the cell's used width" /> <style>

Based on the provided diff, I don't see any security vulnerabilities being fixed. The changes appear to be related to test file metadata rather than security issues.

Analysis for Each Potential Vulnerability:
    Vulnerability Existed: no
    No security vulnerability found [testing/web-platform/tests/css/css-tables/subpixel-table-cell-width-002.html] [Lines 2-5]
    [Old Code: <meta name="flags" content="" />]
    [Fixed Code: (removed line)]

The change simply removes an empty meta tag for "flags" which appears to be test-related metadata. There's no indication this relates to any security vulnerability. The modification seems to be cleanup of test file structure rather than addressing any security concerns.

If an attacker could control the contents of an iframe sandboxed with <code>allow-popups</code> but not <code>allow-scripts</code>, they were able to craft a link that, when clicked, would lead to JavaScript execution in violation of the sandbox. This vulnerability affects Firefox < 98, Firefox ESR < 91.7, and Thunderbird < 91.7.

--- /root/PatchLeaks-main/products/firefox_downloads/FIREFOX_RELEASE_97_END/firefox-FIREFOX_RELEASE_97_END/testing/web-platform/tests/html/canvas/offscreen/transformations/2d.transformation.rotate.direction.worker.js+++ /root/PatchLeaks-main/products/firefox_downloads/FIREFOX_RELEASE_98_END/firefox-FIREFOX_RELEASE_98_END/testing/web-platform/tests/html/canvas/offscreen/transformations/2d.transformation.rotate.direction.worker.js@@ -13,15 +13,15 @@ }); t.step(function() {-var offscreenCanvas = new OffscreenCanvas(100, 50);-var ctx = offscreenCanvas.getContext('2d');+var canvas = new OffscreenCanvas(100, 50);+var ctx = canvas.getContext('2d'); ctx.fillStyle = '#f00'; ctx.fillRect(0, 0, 100, 50); ctx.rotate(Math.PI / 2); ctx.fillStyle = '#0f0'; ctx.fillRect(0, -100, 50, 100);-_assertPixel(offscreenCanvas, 50,25, 0,255,0,255, "50,25", "0,255,0,255");+_assertPixel(canvas, 50,25, 0,255,0,255, "50,25", "0,255,0,255"); t.done(); });

After analyzing the provided code diff, I don't see any security-related changes. The changes appear to be purely cosmetic/refactoring changes (variable renaming) without any security implications.

Here's the structured response:

Vulnerability Existed: no
[No security vulnerability found] [testing/web-platform/tests/html/canvas/offscreen/transformations/2d.transformation.rotate.direction.worker.js] [Lines 13-23]
[Old Code: var offscreenCanvas = new OffscreenCanvas(100, 50); var ctx = offscreenCanvas.getContext('2d'); ... _assertPixel(offscreenCanvas, 50,25, 0,255,0,255, "50,25", "0,255,0,255");]
[Fixed Code: var canvas = new OffscreenCanvas(100, 50); var ctx = canvas.getContext('2d'); ... _assertPixel(canvas, 50,25, 0,255,0,255, "50,25", "0,255,0,255");]

The changes only involve:
1. Renaming the variable `offscreenCanvas` to `canvas`
2. Updating the variable name in the `_assertPixel` call
3. No changes to the actual logic or security-relevant parts of the code

If an attacker could control the contents of an iframe sandboxed with <code>allow-popups</code> but not <code>allow-scripts</code>, they were able to craft a link that, when clicked, would lead to JavaScript execution in violation of the sandbox. This vulnerability affects Firefox < 98, Firefox ESR < 91.7, and Thunderbird < 91.7.

--- /root/PatchLeaks-main/products/firefox_downloads/FIREFOX_RELEASE_97_END/firefox-FIREFOX_RELEASE_97_END/testing/web-platform/tests/css/css-values/calc-offsets-absolute-top-1.html+++ /root/PatchLeaks-main/products/firefox_downloads/FIREFOX_RELEASE_98_END/firefox-FIREFOX_RELEASE_98_END/testing/web-platform/tests/css/css-values/calc-offsets-absolute-top-1.html@@ -5,7 +5,6 @@   <link rel="author" title="L. David Baron" href="https://dbaron.org/">   <link rel="help" href="http://www.w3.org/TR/css3-values/#calc-notation">   <link rel="match" href="calc-offsets-absolute-top-1-ref.html">-  <meta name="flags" content=""> <style type="text/css"> body { margin: 0 } body > div { float: left; height: 100px; width: 3px; position: relative }

Analysis of the provided code diff:

1. Vulnerability Existed: no
   No specific vulnerability identified [File] testing/web-platform/tests/css/css-values/calc-offsets-absolute-top-1.html [Lines] 5
   Old Code: <meta name="flags" content="">
   Fixed Code: (line removed)

Additional Notes:
- The diff shows only the removal of an empty meta tag with a "flags" attribute, which doesn't appear to be security-related
- This appears to be a test file cleanup rather than a security fix
- No known vulnerabilities are associated with this change
- The modification doesn't introduce or fix any security-relevant functionality

If an attacker could control the contents of an iframe sandboxed with <code>allow-popups</code> but not <code>allow-scripts</code>, they were able to craft a link that, when clicked, would lead to JavaScript execution in violation of the sandbox. This vulnerability affects Firefox < 98, Firefox ESR < 91.7, and Thunderbird < 91.7.

--- /root/PatchLeaks-main/products/firefox_downloads/FIREFOX_RELEASE_97_END/firefox-FIREFOX_RELEASE_97_END/testing/web-platform/tests/html/canvas/offscreen/fill-and-stroke-styles/2d.gradient.interpolate.outside.html+++ /root/PatchLeaks-main/products/firefox_downloads/FIREFOX_RELEASE_98_END/firefox-FIREFOX_RELEASE_98_END/testing/web-platform/tests/html/canvas/offscreen/fill-and-stroke-styles/2d.gradient.interpolate.outside.html@@ -17,8 +17,8 @@ }); t.step(function() {-var offscreenCanvas = new OffscreenCanvas(100, 50);-var ctx = offscreenCanvas.getContext('2d');+var canvas = new OffscreenCanvas(100, 50);+var ctx = canvas.getContext('2d'); ctx.fillStyle = '#f00'; ctx.fillRect(0, 0, 100, 50);@@ -27,9 +27,9 @@ g.addColorStop(0.6, '#0f0'); ctx.fillStyle = g; ctx.fillRect(0, 0, 100, 50);-_assertPixelApprox(offscreenCanvas, 20,25, 0,255,0,255, "20,25", "0,255,0,255", 2);-_assertPixelApprox(offscreenCanvas, 50,25, 0,255,0,255, "50,25", "0,255,0,255", 2);-_assertPixelApprox(offscreenCanvas, 80,25, 0,255,0,255, "80,25", "0,255,0,255", 2);+_assertPixelApprox(canvas, 20,25, 0,255,0,255, "20,25", "0,255,0,255", 2);+_assertPixelApprox(canvas, 50,25, 0,255,0,255, "50,25", "0,255,0,255", 2);+_assertPixelApprox(canvas, 80,25, 0,255,0,255, "80,25", "0,255,0,255", 2); t.done(); });

After analyzing the provided code diff, I don't see any security vulnerabilities being fixed. The changes appear to be purely variable renaming (from `offscreenCanvas` to `canvas`) and updating the corresponding references in the assertions.

Here's the structured response:

Vulnerability Existed: no
[No security vulnerability found] [testing/web-platform/tests/html/canvas/offscreen/fill-and-stroke-styles/2d.gradient.interpolate.outside.html] [Lines 17-27]
[Old Code]
var offscreenCanvas = new OffscreenCanvas(100, 50);
var ctx = offscreenCanvas.getContext('2d');
...
_assertPixelApprox(offscreenCanvas, 20,25, 0,255,0,255, "20,25", "0,255,0,255", 2);
[Fixed Code]
var canvas = new OffscreenCanvas(100, 50);
var ctx = canvas.getContext('2d');
...
_assertPixelApprox(canvas, 20,25, 0,255,0,255, "20,25", "0,255,0,255", 2);

The changes are purely cosmetic/refactoring in nature and don't address any security issues. The functionality remains exactly the same, only the variable name has been changed for consistency or clarity.

If an attacker could control the contents of an iframe sandboxed with <code>allow-popups</code> but not <code>allow-scripts</code>, they were able to craft a link that, when clicked, would lead to JavaScript execution in violation of the sandbox. This vulnerability affects Firefox < 98, Firefox ESR < 91.7, and Thunderbird < 91.7.

--- /root/PatchLeaks-main/products/firefox_downloads/FIREFOX_RELEASE_97_END/firefox-FIREFOX_RELEASE_97_END/gfx/ipc/CanvasManagerParent.h+++ /root/PatchLeaks-main/products/firefox_downloads/FIREFOX_RELEASE_98_END/firefox-FIREFOX_RELEASE_98_END/gfx/ipc/CanvasManagerParent.h@@ -23,7 +23,10 @@   void Bind(Endpoint<PCanvasManagerParent>&& aEndpoint);   void ActorDestroy(ActorDestroyReason aWhy) override;+   already_AddRefed<PWebGLParent> AllocPWebGLParent();+  already_AddRefed<PWebGPUParent> AllocPWebGPUParent();+   mozilla::ipc::IPCResult RecvInitialize(const uint32_t& aId);   mozilla::ipc::IPCResult RecvGetSnapshot(       const uint32_t& aManagerId, const int32_t& aProtocolId,

Based on the provided diff, I'll analyze it for security vulnerabilities:

1. Vulnerability Existed: not sure
   [Potential Missing Security Checks] [gfx/ipc/CanvasManagerParent.h] [Lines 23-26]
   [Old Code]
   already_AddRefed<PWebGLParent> AllocPWebGLParent();
   [Fixed Code]
   already_AddRefed<PWebGLParent> AllocPWebGLParent();
   already_AddRefed<PWebGPUParent> AllocPWebGPUParent();

Additional Details:
- The diff shows the addition of a new method `AllocPWebGPUParent()` for WebGPU support
- While this isn't a direct security fix, adding new IPC methods without proper security checks could potentially introduce vulnerabilities
- The change might be related to adding WebGPU support rather than fixing a specific vulnerability
- Without seeing the implementation of these methods, it's hard to determine if security checks were added

No clear vulnerability name can be identified from this diff alone, as it appears to be a feature addition rather than a security fix. The main change is the addition of WebGPU parent allocation capability.

If an attacker could control the contents of an iframe sandboxed with <code>allow-popups</code> but not <code>allow-scripts</code>, they were able to craft a link that, when clicked, would lead to JavaScript execution in violation of the sandbox. This vulnerability affects Firefox < 98, Firefox ESR < 91.7, and Thunderbird < 91.7.

--- /root/PatchLeaks-main/products/firefox_downloads/FIREFOX_RELEASE_97_END/firefox-FIREFOX_RELEASE_97_END/testing/web-platform/tests/css/selectors/old-tests/css3-modsel-44c.xml+++ /root/PatchLeaks-main/products/firefox_downloads/FIREFOX_RELEASE_98_END/firefox-FIREFOX_RELEASE_98_END/testing/web-platform/tests/css/selectors/old-tests/css3-modsel-44c.xml@@ -8,7 +8,6 @@ ]]></style>   <link rel="author" title="Ian Hickson" href="mailto:[email protected]"/>   <link rel="help" href="https://www.w3.org/TR/css3-selectors/#selectors"/> <!-- bogus link to make sure it gets found -->-  <meta name="flags" content="" />  </head>  <body>   <div> This should be unstyled. </div>

Let me analyze the diff for potential security vulnerabilities:

Vulnerability Existed: no
No specific vulnerability found [File] testing/web-platform/tests/css/selectors/old-tests/css3-modsel-44c.xml [Lines] 8
[Old Code]
  <meta name="flags" content="" />
[Fixed Code]
(removed line)

Additional Details:
- This appears to be a simple test file cleanup where an empty meta tag was removed
- The removed line didn't contain any sensitive information or security-relevant content
- No known vulnerability patterns (XSS, injection, etc.) are present in this change
- The change seems to be purely about removing an unused/empty tag rather than fixing a security issue

No other vulnerabilities detected in this diff. The modification is minor and doesn't appear to be security-related.

If an attacker could control the contents of an iframe sandboxed with <code>allow-popups</code> but not <code>allow-scripts</code>, they were able to craft a link that, when clicked, would lead to JavaScript execution in violation of the sandbox. This vulnerability affects Firefox < 98, Firefox ESR < 91.7, and Thunderbird < 91.7.

--- /root/PatchLeaks-main/products/firefox_downloads/FIREFOX_RELEASE_97_END/firefox-FIREFOX_RELEASE_97_END/testing/web-platform/tests/html/canvas/offscreen/fill-and-stroke-styles/2d.fillStyle.parse.css-color-4-hsl-3.worker.js+++ /root/PatchLeaks-main/products/firefox_downloads/FIREFOX_RELEASE_98_END/firefox-FIREFOX_RELEASE_98_END/testing/web-platform/tests/html/canvas/offscreen/fill-and-stroke-styles/2d.fillStyle.parse.css-color-4-hsl-3.worker.js@@ -13,14 +13,14 @@ }); t.step(function() {-var offscreenCanvas = new OffscreenCanvas(100, 50);-var ctx = offscreenCanvas.getContext('2d');+var canvas = new OffscreenCanvas(100, 50);+var ctx = canvas.getContext('2d'); ctx.fillStyle = '#f00'; ctx.fillStyle = 'hsl(120.0, 100.0%, 50.0%, 0.2)'; ctx.fillRect(0, 0, 100, 50);-_assertPixel(offscreenCanvas, 50,25, 0,255,0,51, "50,25", "0,255,0,51");+_assertPixel(canvas, 50,25, 0,255,0,51, "50,25", "0,255,0,51"); t.done(); });

Based on the provided diff, I'll analyze it for potential security vulnerabilities:

1. Vulnerability Existed: no
   No specific vulnerability found [File] testing/web-platform/tests/html/canvas/offscreen/fill-and-stroke-styles/2d.fillStyle.parse.css-color-4-hsl-3.worker.js [Lines] 13-21
   [Old Code]
   var offscreenCanvas = new OffscreenCanvas(100, 50);
   var ctx = offscreenCanvas.getContext('2d');
   ...
   _assertPixel(offscreenCanvas, 50,25, 0,255,0,51, "50,25", "0,255,0,51");

   [Fixed Code]
   var canvas = new OffscreenCanvas(100, 50);
   var ctx = canvas.getContext('2d');
   ...
   _assertPixel(canvas, 50,25, 0,255,0,51, "50,25", "0,255,0,51");

Additional Details:
- The changes appear to be purely variable renaming (from `offscreenCanvas` to `canvas`)
- No security-related changes were made
- The functionality remains exactly the same
- This is likely a code style/consistency change rather than a security fix

If an attacker could control the contents of an iframe sandboxed with <code>allow-popups</code> but not <code>allow-scripts</code>, they were able to craft a link that, when clicked, would lead to JavaScript execution in violation of the sandbox. This vulnerability affects Firefox < 98, Firefox ESR < 91.7, and Thunderbird < 91.7.

--- /root/PatchLeaks-main/products/firefox_downloads/FIREFOX_RELEASE_97_END/firefox-FIREFOX_RELEASE_97_END/accessible/tests/browser/e10s/browser_treeupdate_select_dropdown.js+++ /root/PatchLeaks-main/products/firefox_downloads/FIREFOX_RELEASE_98_END/firefox-FIREFOX_RELEASE_98_END/accessible/tests/browser/e10s/browser_treeupdate_select_dropdown.js@@ -40,6 +40,7 @@       const EventUtils = ContentTaskUtils.getEventUtils(content);       EventUtils.synthesizeKey("VK_DOWN", { altKey: true }, content);     });+    info("Waiting for parent focus");     let event = await focused;     let dropdown = event.accessible.parent;@@ -64,13 +65,8 @@       "select",       "select focused after collapsed"     );-    await invokeContentTask(browser, [], () => {-      const { ContentTaskUtils } = ChromeUtils.import(-        "resource://testing-common/ContentTaskUtils.jsm"-      );-      const EventUtils = ContentTaskUtils.getEventUtils(content);-      EventUtils.synthesizeKey("VK_ESCAPE", {}, content);-    });+    EventUtils.synthesizeKey("VK_ESCAPE", {}, window);+    info("Waiting for child focus");     await focused;   },   { iframe: true, remoteIframe: true }

Let me analyze the code diff for potential security vulnerabilities:

1. Vulnerability Existed: not sure
   [Potential Event Injection] [accessible/tests/browser/e10s/browser_treeupdate_select_dropdown.js] [Lines 64-70]
   [Old Code]
   await invokeContentTask(browser, [], () => {
     const { ContentTaskUtils } = ChromeUtils.import(
       "resource://testing-common/ContentTaskUtils.jsm"
     );
     const EventUtils = ContentUtils.getEventUtils(content);
     EventUtils.synthesizeKey("VK_ESCAPE", {}, content);
   });
   
   [Fixed Code]
   EventUtils.synthesizeKey("VK_ESCAPE", {}, window);
   info("Waiting for child focus");

Additional Details:
- The change moves from using ContentTask to directly using EventUtils in the parent window context
- While this is likely a test improvement, there could be security implications if the event handling was previously isolated for safety
- The change adds info logging which helps with debugging but doesn't affect security

Note: This appears to be a test file modification, and test files typically don't contain production security vulnerabilities. The changes seem focused on improving test reliability and debugging rather than fixing security issues.

If an attacker could control the contents of an iframe sandboxed with <code>allow-popups</code> but not <code>allow-scripts</code>, they were able to craft a link that, when clicked, would lead to JavaScript execution in violation of the sandbox. This vulnerability affects Firefox < 98, Firefox ESR < 91.7, and Thunderbird < 91.7.

--- /root/PatchLeaks-main/products/firefox_downloads/FIREFOX_RELEASE_97_END/firefox-FIREFOX_RELEASE_97_END/testing/web-platform/tests/html/canvas/offscreen/path-objects/2d.path.transformation.changing.html+++ /root/PatchLeaks-main/products/firefox_downloads/FIREFOX_RELEASE_98_END/firefox-FIREFOX_RELEASE_98_END/testing/web-platform/tests/html/canvas/offscreen/path-objects/2d.path.transformation.changing.html@@ -17,8 +17,8 @@ }); t.step(function() {-var offscreenCanvas = new OffscreenCanvas(100, 50);-var ctx = offscreenCanvas.getContext('2d');+var canvas = new OffscreenCanvas(100, 50);+var ctx = canvas.getContext('2d'); ctx.fillStyle = '#f00'; ctx.fillRect(0, 0, 100, 50);@@ -34,7 +34,7 @@ ctx.rotate(Math.PI/2); ctx.scale(0.1, 0.1); ctx.fill();-_assertPixel(offscreenCanvas, 50,25, 0,255,0,255, "50,25", "0,255,0,255");+_assertPixel(canvas, 50,25, 0,255,0,255, "50,25", "0,255,0,255"); t.done(); });

After analyzing the provided code diff, here's the security assessment:

1. Vulnerability Existed: no
   No specific vulnerability found [File] [Lines 17-18, 34]
   [Old Code]
   var offscreenCanvas = new OffscreenCanvas(100, 50);
   var ctx = offscreenCanvas.getContext('2d');
   _assertPixel(offscreenCanvas, 50,25, 0,255,0,255, "50,25", "0,255,0,255");
   
   [Fixed Code]
   var canvas = new OffscreenCanvas(100, 50);
   var ctx = canvas.getContext('2d');
   _assertPixel(canvas, 50,25, 0,255,0,255, "50,25", "0,255,0,255");

The changes appear to be purely variable renaming from `offscreenCanvas` to `canvas` and don't indicate any security fixes. The modifications are likely for code consistency or readability rather than addressing security vulnerabilities. No known vulnerability patterns (such as XSS, injection, etc.) are present in either the old or new code.

If an attacker could control the contents of an iframe sandboxed with <code>allow-popups</code> but not <code>allow-scripts</code>, they were able to craft a link that, when clicked, would lead to JavaScript execution in violation of the sandbox. This vulnerability affects Firefox < 98, Firefox ESR < 91.7, and Thunderbird < 91.7.

--- /root/PatchLeaks-main/products/firefox_downloads/FIREFOX_RELEASE_97_END/firefox-FIREFOX_RELEASE_97_END/mobile/android/geckoview/src/androidTest/assets/web_extensions/test-support/background.js+++ /root/PatchLeaks-main/products/firefox_downloads/FIREFOX_RELEASE_98_END/firefox-FIREFOX_RELEASE_98_END/mobile/android/geckoview/src/androidTest/assets/web_extensions/test-support/background.js@@ -62,6 +62,9 @@   UsingGpuProcess() {     return browser.test.usingGpuProcess();   },+  KillGpuProcess() {+    return browser.test.killGpuProcess();+  },   CrashGpuProcess() {     return browser.test.crashGpuProcess();   },

Based on the provided code diff, here's the analysis:

Vulnerability Existed: not sure
Potential Process Control Vulnerability [File] [Lines 62-65]
[Old Code]
  UsingGpuProcess() {
    return browser.test.usingGpuProcess();
  },
[Fixed Code]
  UsingGpuProcess() {
    return browser.test.usingGpuProcess();
  },
  KillGpuProcess() {
    return browser.test.killGpuProcess();
  },

Additional Details:
- The diff adds a new function `KillGpuProcess()` that allows terminating the GPU process
- While not clearly a vulnerability in itself, adding process termination capabilities could potentially be abused if not properly controlled
- The impact depends on how this function is exposed and used in the test environment
- Without more context about the test environment's security controls, we can't be certain if this introduces a vulnerability

If an attacker could control the contents of an iframe sandboxed with <code>allow-popups</code> but not <code>allow-scripts</code>, they were able to craft a link that, when clicked, would lead to JavaScript execution in violation of the sandbox. This vulnerability affects Firefox < 98, Firefox ESR < 91.7, and Thunderbird < 91.7.

--- /root/PatchLeaks-main/products/firefox_downloads/FIREFOX_RELEASE_97_END/firefox-FIREFOX_RELEASE_97_END/testing/web-platform/tests/html/canvas/offscreen/path-objects/2d.path.stroke.skew.worker.js+++ /root/PatchLeaks-main/products/firefox_downloads/FIREFOX_RELEASE_98_END/firefox-FIREFOX_RELEASE_98_END/testing/web-platform/tests/html/canvas/offscreen/path-objects/2d.path.stroke.skew.worker.js@@ -13,8 +13,8 @@ }); t.step(function() {-var offscreenCanvas = new OffscreenCanvas(100, 50);-var ctx = offscreenCanvas.getContext('2d');+var canvas = new OffscreenCanvas(100, 50);+var ctx = canvas.getContext('2d'); ctx.fillStyle = '#f00'; ctx.fillRect(0, 0, 100, 50);@@ -47,15 +47,15 @@ ctx.strokeStyle = '#f00'; ctx.stroke(); ctx.restore();-_assertPixel(offscreenCanvas, 0,0, 0,255,0,255, "0,0", "0,255,0,255");-_assertPixel(offscreenCanvas, 50,0, 0,255,0,255, "50,0", "0,255,0,255");-_assertPixel(offscreenCanvas, 99,0, 0,255,0,255, "99,0", "0,255,0,255");-_assertPixel(offscreenCanvas, 0,25, 0,255,0,255, "0,25", "0,255,0,255");-_assertPixel(offscreenCanvas, 50,25, 0,255,0,255, "50,25", "0,255,0,255");-_assertPixel(offscreenCanvas, 99,25, 0,255,0,255, "99,25", "0,255,0,255");-_assertPixel(offscreenCanvas, 0,49, 0,255,0,255, "0,49", "0,255,0,255");-_assertPixel(offscreenCanvas, 50,49, 0,255,0,255, "50,49", "0,255,0,255");-_assertPixel(offscreenCanvas, 99,49, 0,255,0,255, "99,49", "0,255,0,255");+_assertPixel(canvas, 0,0, 0,255,0,255, "0,0", "0,255,0,255");+_assertPixel(canvas, 50,0, 0,255,0,255, "50,0", "0,255,0,255");+_assertPixel(canvas, 99,0, 0,255,0,255, "99,0", "0,255,0,255");+_assertPixel(canvas, 0,25, 0,255,0,255, "0,25", "0,255,0,255");+_assertPixel(canvas, 50,25, 0,255,0,255, "50,25", "0,255,0,255");+_assertPixel(canvas, 99,25, 0,255,0,255, "99,25", "0,255,0,255");+_assertPixel(canvas, 0,49, 0,255,0,255, "0,49", "0,255,0,255");+_assertPixel(canvas, 50,49, 0,255,0,255, "50,49", "0,255,0,255");+_assertPixel(canvas, 99,49, 0,255,0,255, "99,49", "0,255,0,255"); t.done(); });

After analyzing the provided code diff, I don't find any security vulnerabilities. The changes appear to be purely cosmetic/refactoring changes where a variable name was changed from `offscreenCanvas` to `canvas` and all subsequent references were updated accordingly.

Here's the structured response:

Vulnerability Existed: no
[No security vulnerability found] [testing/web-platform/tests/html/canvas/offscreen/path-objects/2d.path.stroke.skew.worker.js] [Lines 13-47]
[Old Code: Used variable name 'offscreenCanvas']
[Fixed Code: Changed variable name to 'canvas']

The changes are:
1. Variable renamed from `offscreenCanvas` to `canvas` in line 13
2. All subsequent references to the variable updated to use the new name (lines 47-56)

This appears to be a code style/readability improvement rather than a security fix. No security-related functionality was changed.

If an attacker could control the contents of an iframe sandboxed with <code>allow-popups</code> but not <code>allow-scripts</code>, they were able to craft a link that, when clicked, would lead to JavaScript execution in violation of the sandbox. This vulnerability affects Firefox < 98, Firefox ESR < 91.7, and Thunderbird < 91.7.