--- /root/PatchLeaks-main/products/firefox_downloads/FIREFOX_RELEASE_97_END/firefox-FIREFOX_RELEASE_97_END/testing/web-platform/tests/html/canvas/offscreen/compositing/2d.composite.canvas.xor.html+++ /root/PatchLeaks-main/products/firefox_downloads/FIREFOX_RELEASE_98_END/firefox-FIREFOX_RELEASE_98_END/testing/web-platform/tests/html/canvas/offscreen/compositing/2d.composite.canvas.xor.html@@ -17,11 +17,11 @@ }); 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');-var offscreenCanvas2 = new OffscreenCanvas(offscreenCanvas.width, offscreenCanvas.height);+var offscreenCanvas2 = new OffscreenCanvas(canvas.width, canvas.height); var ctx2 = offscreenCanvas2.getContext('2d'); var promise = new Promise(function(resolve, reject) {     var xhr = new XMLHttpRequest();@@ -39,7 +39,7 @@         ctx.fillRect(0, 0, 100, 50);         ctx.globalCompositeOperation = 'xor';         ctx.drawImage(offscreenCanvas2, 0, 0);-        _assertPixelApprox(offscreenCanvas, 50,25, 191,255,64,128, "50,25", "191,255,64,128", 5);+        _assertPixelApprox(canvas, 50,25, 191,255,64,128, "50,25", "191,255,64,128", 5);     }, t_fail); }).then(t_pass, t_fail);

Analyzing the provided code diff, I don't see any security vulnerabilities being fixed. The changes appear to be primarily variable renaming and consistency updates. Here's the analysis:

1. Vulnerability Existed: no
    Variable Renaming Consistency Fix [testing/web-platform/tests/html/canvas/offscreen/compositing/2d.composite.canvas.xor.html] [Lines 17-39]
    Old Code:
    ```javascript
    var offscreenCanvas = new OffscreenCanvas(100, 50);
    var ctx = offscreenCanvas.getContext('2d');
    var offscreenCanvas2 = new OffscreenCanvas(offscreenCanvas.width, offscreenCanvas.height);
    _assertPixelApprox(offscreenCanvas, 50,25, 191,255,64,128, "50,25", "191,255,64,128", 5);
    ```
    Fixed Code:
    ```javascript
    var canvas = new OffscreenCanvas(100, 50);
    var ctx = canvas.getContext('2d');
    var offscreenCanvas2 = new OffscreenCanvas(canvas.width, canvas.height);
    _assertPixelApprox(canvas, 50,25, 191,255,64,128, "50,25", "191,255,64,128", 5);
    ```

The changes are purely cosmetic, renaming `offscreenCanvas` to `canvas` for consistency. There are no security-related fixes in this diff. The functionality remains exactly the same, only variable names have been updated.

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/taskcluster/ci/build/android.yml+++ /root/PatchLeaks-main/products/firefox_downloads/FIREFOX_RELEASE_98_END/firefox-FIREFOX_RELEASE_98_END/taskcluster/ci/build/android.yml@@ -5,6 +5,8 @@ job-defaults:     attributes:         artifact_map: taskcluster/gecko_taskgraph/manifests/fennec_geckoview.yml+        maven_packages:+            - geckoview     index:         product: mobile     worker:@@ -14,7 +16,7 @@             GRADLE_USER_HOME: "/builds/worker/checkouts/gecko/mobile/android/gradle/dotgradle-offline"         artifacts:             - name: public/build/maven-              path: /builds/worker/workspace/obj-build/gradle/build/mobile/android/geckoview/maven/+              path: /builds/worker/workspace/obj-build/gradle/maven/               type: directory             - name: public/build/geckoview-androidTest.apk               path: /builds/worker/workspace/obj-build/gradle/build/mobile/android/geckoview/outputs/apk/androidTest/withGeckoBinaries/debug/geckoview-withGeckoBinaries-debug-androidTest.apk

Let me analyze the code diff for potential security fixes:

1. Vulnerability Existed: not sure
   [Potential Path Traversal or Insecure File Path] [taskcluster/ci/build/android.yml] [Lines 14-16]
   [Old Code]
             - name: public/build/maven
               path: /builds/worker/workspace/obj-build/gradle/build/mobile/android/geckoview/maven/
   [Fixed Code]
             - name: public/build/maven
               path: /builds/worker/workspace/obj-build/gradle/maven/

   Additional Details: The path was simplified, which might indicate a security improvement by reducing directory traversal possibilities, though this isn't clearly a security fix.

2. Vulnerability Existed: no
   [Configuration Improvement] [taskcluster/ci/build/android.yml] [Lines 5-7]
   [Old Code]
     attributes:
         artifact_map: taskcluster/gecko_taskgraph/manifests/fennec_geckoview.yml
   [Fixed Code]
     attributes:
         artifact_map: taskcluster/gecko_taskgraph/manifests/fennec_geckoview.yml
         maven_packages:
             - geckoview

   Additional Details: This appears to be a configuration enhancement rather than a security fix, adding maven_packages to the attributes.

Note: The changes appear to be primarily configuration updates rather than explicit security fixes. The path change might have security implications but it's not clearly documented as 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/testing/web-platform/tests/html/canvas/offscreen/shadows/2d.shadow.image.transparent.1.worker.js+++ /root/PatchLeaks-main/products/firefox_downloads/FIREFOX_RELEASE_98_END/firefox-FIREFOX_RELEASE_98_END/testing/web-platform/tests/html/canvas/offscreen/shadows/2d.shadow.image.transparent.1.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 = '#0f0'; ctx.fillRect(0, 0, 100, 50);@@ -32,7 +32,7 @@ promise.then(function(response) {     createImageBitmap(response).then(bitmap => {         ctx.drawImage(bitmap, 0, -50);-        _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_fail); }).then(t_pass, t_fail);

Analysis of the provided code diff:

1. Vulnerability Existed: no
   No specific vulnerability [File] testing/web-platform/tests/html/canvas/offscreen/shadows/2d.shadow.image.transparent.1.worker.js [Lines] 13-32
   [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");

Additional Details:
The changes appear to be purely variable renaming from `offscreenCanvas` to `canvas` for consistency or clarity. There are no security-related changes or vulnerability fixes in this diff. The functionality remains exactly the same, only the variable name has been updated throughout the file.

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/compositing/2d.composite.image.source-in.html+++ /root/PatchLeaks-main/products/firefox_downloads/FIREFOX_RELEASE_98_END/firefox-FIREFOX_RELEASE_98_END/testing/web-platform/tests/html/canvas/offscreen/compositing/2d.composite.image.source-in.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 = 'rgba(0, 255, 255, 0.5)';@@ -36,7 +36,7 @@ promise.then(function(response) {     createImageBitmap(response).then(bitmap => {         ctx.drawImage(bitmap, 0, 0);-        _assertPixelApprox(offscreenCanvas, 50,25, 255,255,0,96, "50,25", "255,255,0,96", 5);+        _assertPixelApprox(canvas, 50,25, 255,255,0,96, "50,25", "255,255,0,96", 5);     }, t_fail); }).then(t_pass, t_fail);

Based on the provided code diff, I don't see any security vulnerabilities being fixed. The changes appear to be purely variable renaming and don't involve any security-sensitive operations. Here's the analysis:

1. Vulnerability Existed: no
   Variable Renaming [testing/web-platform/tests/html/canvas/offscreen/compositing/2d.composite.image.source-in.html] [Lines 17-18, 36]
   Old Code:
   ```javascript
   var offscreenCanvas = new OffscreenCanvas(100, 50);
   var ctx = offscreenCanvas.getContext('2d');
   ```
   Fixed Code:
   ```javascript
   var canvas = new OffscreenCanvas(100, 50);
   var ctx = canvas.getContext('2d');
   ```

2. Vulnerability Existed: no
   Variable Renaming [testing/web-platform/tests/html/canvas/offscreen/compositing/2d.composite.image.source-in.html] [Line 36]
   Old Code:
   ```javascript
   _assertPixelApprox(offscreenCanvas, 50,25, 255,255,0,96, "50,25", "255,255,0,96", 5);
   ```
   Fixed Code:
   ```javascript
   _assertPixelApprox(canvas, 50,25, 255,255,0,96, "50,25", "255,255,0,96", 5);
   ```

The changes are consistent throughout the file, simply renaming the variable `offscreenCanvas` to `canvas` for consistency or readability purposes. No security implications are apparent in this change.

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.clip.winding.2.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.clip.winding.2.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);@@ -34,7 +34,7 @@ ctx.clip(); ctx.fillStyle = '#0f0'; ctx.fillRect(0, 0, 100, 50);-_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(); });

Analysis of the provided code diff:

1. Vulnerability Existed: no
No security vulnerability found [File] testing/web-platform/tests/html/canvas/offscreen/path-objects/2d.path.clip.winding.2.worker.js [Lines] 13-34
[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` for consistency or clarity, with no security implications. The functionality remains identical, just using a different variable name. No security vulnerabilities were identified in this diff.

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/security/manager/ssl/SSLServerCertVerification.h+++ /root/PatchLeaks-main/products/firefox_downloads/FIREFOX_RELEASE_98_END/firefox-FIREFOX_RELEASE_98_END/security/manager/ssl/SSLServerCertVerification.h@@ -10,14 +10,13 @@ #include "ScopedNSSTypes.h" #include "mozilla/Maybe.h" #include "mozpkix/pkix.h"+#include "nsIX509Cert.h" #include "nsTArray.h" #include "nsThreadUtils.h" #include "prerror.h" #include "prio.h" #include "seccomon.h" #include "secoidt.h"--class nsNSSCertificate; using namespace mozilla::pkix;@@ -44,8 +43,7 @@  public:   NS_INLINE_DECL_PURE_VIRTUAL_REFCOUNTING-  virtual void Dispatch(nsNSSCertificate* aCert,-                        nsTArray<nsTArray<uint8_t>>&& aBuiltChain,+  virtual void Dispatch(nsTArray<nsTArray<uint8_t>>&& aBuiltChain,                         nsTArray<nsTArray<uint8_t>>&& aPeerCertChain,                         uint16_t aCertificateTransparencyStatus,                         EVStatus aEVStatus, bool aSucceeded,@@ -69,8 +67,7 @@   explicit SSLServerCertVerificationResult(TransportSecurityInfo* infoObject);-  void Dispatch(nsNSSCertificate* aCert,-                nsTArray<nsTArray<uint8_t>>&& aBuiltChain,+  void Dispatch(nsTArray<nsTArray<uint8_t>>&& aBuiltChain,                 nsTArray<nsTArray<uint8_t>>&& aPeerCertChain,                 uint16_t aCertificateTransparencyStatus, EVStatus aEVStatus,                 bool aSucceeded, PRErrorCode aFinalError,@@ -82,7 +79,6 @@   ~SSLServerCertVerificationResult() = default;   const RefPtr<TransportSecurityInfo> mInfoObject;-  RefPtr<nsNSSCertificate> mCert;   nsTArray<nsTArray<uint8_t>> mBuiltChain;   nsTArray<nsTArray<uint8_t>> mPeerCertChain;   uint16_t mCertificateTransparencyStatus;@@ -100,14 +96,13 @@   // Must be called only on the socket transport thread   static SECStatus Dispatch(uint64_t addrForLogging, void* aPinArg,-                            const UniqueCERTCertificate& serverCert,                             nsTArray<nsTArray<uint8_t>>&& peerCertChain,                             const nsACString& aHostName, int32_t aPort,                             const OriginAttributes& aOriginAttributes,                             Maybe<nsTArray<uint8_t>>& stapledOCSPResponse,                             Maybe<nsTArray<uint8_t>>& sctsFromTLSExtension,                             Maybe<DelegatedCredentialInfo>& dcInfo,-                            uint32_t providerFlags, Time time, PRTime prtime,+                            uint32_t providerFlags, Time time,                             uint32_t certVerifierFlags,                             BaseSSLServerCertVerificationResult* aResultTask);@@ -116,20 +111,18 @@   // Must be called only on the socket transport thread   SSLServerCertVerificationJob(uint64_t addrForLogging, void* aPinArg,-                               const UniqueCERTCertificate& cert,                                nsTArray<nsTArray<uint8_t>>&& peerCertChain,                                const nsACString& aHostName, int32_t aPort,                                const OriginAttributes& aOriginAttributes,                                Maybe<nsTArray<uint8_t>>& stapledOCSPResponse,                                Maybe<nsTArray<uint8_t>>& sctsFromTLSExtension,                                Maybe<DelegatedCredentialInfo>& dcInfo,-                               uint32_t providerFlags, Time time, PRTime prtime,+                               uint32_t providerFlags, Time time,                                uint32_t certVerifierFlags,                                BaseSSLServerCertVerificationResult* aResultTask)       : Runnable("psm::SSLServerCertVerificationJob"),         mAddrForLogging(addrForLogging),         mPinArg(aPinArg),-        mCert(CERT_DupCertificate(cert.get())),         mPeerCertChain(std::move(peerCertChain)),         mHostName(aHostName),         mPort(aPort),@@ -137,7 +130,6 @@         mProviderFlags(providerFlags),         mCertVerifierFlags(certVerifierFlags),         mTime(time),-        mPRTime(prtime),         mStapledOCSPResponse(std::move(stapledOCSPResponse)),         mSCTsFromTLSExtension(std::move(sctsFromTLSExtension)),         mDCInfo(std::move(dcInfo)),@@ -145,7 +137,6 @@   uint64_t mAddrForLogging;   void* mPinArg;-  const UniqueCERTCertificate mCert;   nsTArray<nsTArray<uint8_t>> mPeerCertChain;   nsCString mHostName;   int32_t mPort;@@ -153,7 +144,6 @@   const uint32_t mProviderFlags;   const uint32_t mCertVerifierFlags;   const Time mTime;-  const PRTime mPRTime;   Maybe<nsTArray<uint8_t>> mStapledOCSPResponse;   Maybe<nsTArray<uint8_t>> mSCTsFromTLSExtension;   Maybe<DelegatedCredentialInfo> mDCInfo;

Based on the provided code diff, I'll analyze it for potential security vulnerabilities. Here's the analysis following the required format:

1. Vulnerability Existed: not sure
   [Potential Information Leak] [security/manager/ssl/SSLServerCertVerification.h] [Multiple locations]
   [Old Code: Various parameters and member variables related to certificate handling]
   [Fixed Code: Removed several certificate-related parameters and member variables]

Details:
- The diff shows removal of several certificate-related parameters and member variables (mCert, mPRTime, etc.)
- The class nsNSSCertificate forward declaration was removed and replaced with nsIX509Cert include
- The removal of these parameters could potentially be related to preventing information leaks or reducing attack surface, but without more context about why these changes were made, it's difficult to determine if this was fixing a specific vulnerability

2. Vulnerability Existed: not sure
   [Potential Time-based Vulnerability] [security/manager/ssl/SSLServerCertVerification.h] [Multiple locations]
   [Old Code: Used both Time and PRTime time representations]
   [Fixed Code: Removed PRTime usage]

Details:
- The removal of PRTime while keeping Time could be related to fixing potential timing-related issues
- Using multiple time representations could lead to inconsistencies in certificate validation
- However, without more context, we can't be certain if this was fixing a specific vulnerability

Note: The changes appear to be simplifying the certificate verification interface and removing potentially redundant or dangerous parameters, but without explicit vulnerability reports or more context about the changes, we can't definitively identify specific vulnerabilities being fixed. The changes could be part of a larger security hardening effort rather than fixing specific known vulnerabilities.

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.lineTo.basic.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.lineTo.basic.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);@@ -24,7 +24,7 @@ ctx.moveTo(0, 25); ctx.lineTo(100, 25); ctx.stroke();-_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 fixes. The changes appear to be purely variable renaming for better code clarity. Here's the analysis:

1. Vulnerability Existed: no
    Variable Renaming [File] [Lines 13-14, 24]
    [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 simply rename the variable from `offscreenCanvas` to `canvas` for consistency or brevity, without any security implications. No vulnerabilities were fixed in this diff.

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/dom/media/webrtc/jsapi/PeerConnectionImpl.h+++ /root/PatchLeaks-main/products/firefox_downloads/FIREFOX_RELEASE_98_END/firefox-FIREFOX_RELEASE_98_END/dom/media/webrtc/jsapi/PeerConnectionImpl.h@@ -411,6 +411,9 @@   // initialize telemetry for when calls start   void StartCallTelem();+  // Gets all codec stats for all transports, coalesced to transport level.+  nsTArray<dom::RTCCodecStats> GetCodecStats(DOMHighResTimeStamp aNow);+   RefPtr<dom::RTCStatsReportPromise> GetStats(dom::MediaStreamTrack* aSelector,                                               bool aInternalStats);@@ -451,7 +454,7 @@   PeerConnectionImpl& operator=(PeerConnectionImpl);   nsTArray<RefPtr<dom::RTCStatsPromise>> GetSenderStats(-      const RefPtr<MediaPipelineTransmit>& aPipeline);+      const RefPtr<TransceiverImpl>& aTransceiver);   RefPtr<dom::RTCStatsPromise> GetDataChannelStats(       const RefPtr<DataChannelConnection>& aDataChannelConnection,       const DOMHighResTimeStamp aTimestamp);

Here's the analysis of the provided code diff:

1. Vulnerability Existed: no
    No specific vulnerability found [File] [Lines 411-413]
    [Old Code]
    (No code existed before)
    [Fixed Code]
    // Gets all codec stats for all transports, coalesced to transport level.
    nsTArray<dom::RTCCodecStats> GetCodecStats(DOMHighResTimeStamp aNow);

2. Vulnerability Existed: not sure
    Potential parameter type change vulnerability [File] [Lines 451-454]
    [Old Code]
    nsTArray<RefPtr<dom::RTCStatsPromise>> GetSenderStats(
        const RefPtr<MediaPipelineTransmit>& aPipeline);
    [Fixed Code]
    nsTArray<RefPtr<dom::RTCStatsPromise>> GetSenderStats(
        const RefPtr<TransceiverImpl>& aTransceiver);

Note: The first change appears to be a new function addition rather than a security fix. The second change modifies a parameter type, which could potentially be related to security (for example, if the previous parameter type was less secure), but without more context about why this change was made, I can't be certain if it was for security reasons. The change could also be purely functional/architectural.

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-shapes/shape-outside/shape-box/shape-outside-border-box-border-radius-008.html+++ /root/PatchLeaks-main/products/firefox_downloads/FIREFOX_RELEASE_98_END/firefox-FIREFOX_RELEASE_98_END/testing/web-platform/tests/css/css-shapes/shape-outside/shape-box/shape-outside-border-box-border-radius-008.html@@ -9,7 +9,6 @@   <link rel="author" title="Mozilla" href="http://www.mozilla.org/">   <link rel="help" href="https://drafts.csswg.org/css-shapes-1/#shapes-from-box-values">   <link rel="match" href="reference/shape-outside-border-box-border-radius-008-ref.html">-  <meta name="flags" content="">   <meta name="assert" content="Test the boxes are wrapping around the right float shape defined by the border-box and border-top-right-radius value under vertical-lr writing-mode.">   <style>   .container {

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

Vulnerability Existed: no
No security vulnerability found [File] [Lines 9]
[Old Code]
<meta name="flags" content="">
[Fixed Code]
(removed line)

Additional Details:
- The change simply removes an empty meta tag for "flags" which doesn't appear to have any security implications
- This appears to be a test file cleanup rather than a security fix
- No known vulnerability is associated with this change
- The modification doesn't affect any security-sensitive functionality

No other vulnerabilities were detected in this diff. The change seems to be purely cosmetic or related to test case maintenance 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/browser/themes/windows/places/organizer.css+++ /root/PatchLeaks-main/products/firefox_downloads/FIREFOX_RELEASE_98_END/firefox-FIREFOX_RELEASE_98_END/browser/themes/windows/places/organizer.css@@ -211,7 +211,7 @@ /* Downloads pane */-#downloadsRichListBox {+#downloadsListBox {   color: var(--organizer-color);   background-color: var(--organizer-content-background); }

Analysis of the provided code diff:

1. Vulnerability Existed: no
   - This appears to be a simple CSS class name change from `#downloadsRichListBox` to `#downloadsListBox` in the Firefox browser's theme file.
   - The change is purely related to styling/UI and doesn't involve any security-sensitive functionality.
   - No known vulnerability is associated with this change.

Additional Notes:
- The diff shows a CSS selector change in a theme file, which is typically not security-related
- The modification suggests a UI component was renamed (from "RichListBox" to "ListBox") in the underlying code
- No security implications are apparent in this change

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/netwerk/test/perf/perftest_http3_youtube_watch_scroll.js+++ /root/PatchLeaks-main/products/firefox_downloads/FIREFOX_RELEASE_98_END/firefox-FIREFOX_RELEASE_98_END/netwerk/test/perf/perftest_http3_youtube_watch_scroll.js@@ -4,7 +4,7 @@ /* eslint-env node */ /*-Ensure the `--firefox.preference=network.http.http3.enabled:true` is+Ensure the `--firefox.preference=network.http.http3.enable:true` is set for this test. */

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

Vulnerability Existed: no
[No vulnerability found] [netwerk/test/perf/perftest_http3_youtube_watch_scroll.js] [Lines 4]
[Old Code: Ensure the `--firefox.preference=network.http.http3.enabled:true` is]
[Fixed Code: Ensure the `--firefox.preference=network.http.http3.enable:true` is]

Additional notes:
1. This appears to be a simple configuration parameter correction (from "enabled" to "enable") rather than a security fix
2. The change is in a test file, not production code
3. No actual security vulnerability is being addressed here - it's just updating a preference name for test configuration
4. The change is consistent with Firefox's preference naming conventions where boolean flags typically use "enable" rather than "enabled"

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/height-distribution/extra-height-given-to-all-row-groups-003.html+++ /root/PatchLeaks-main/products/firefox_downloads/FIREFOX_RELEASE_98_END/firefox-FIREFOX_RELEASE_98_END/testing/web-platform/tests/css/css-tables/height-distribution/extra-height-given-to-all-row-groups-003.html@@ -6,7 +6,6 @@ <link rel="author" title="David Grogan" href="[email protected]"> <link rel="help" href="https://drafts.csswg.org/css-tables-3/#height-distribution-algorithm"> <link rel="bookmark" href="https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=708345" />-<meta name="flags" content="" /> <meta name="assert" content="All rows of equal intrinsic height should be increased the same amount, regardless of which group they are in, tbody+tbody case" /> <title> all row groups receive extra height distribution

Based on the provided diff, I don't see any security-related changes. The change appears to be removing a meta tag with empty flags content, which doesn't seem security-related.

Answer for Each Vulnerability:
    Vulnerability Existed: no
    No security vulnerability found
    File: testing/web-platform/tests/css/css-tables/height-distribution/extra-height-given-to-all-row-groups-003.html
    Lines: 6
    Old Code: <meta name="flags" content="" />
    Fixed Code: (removed)

Additional Notes:
- The change removes an empty meta tag which appears to be test configuration related
- No security implications are apparent from this change
- The modification seems to be cleaning up test metadata rather than fixing a security issue

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/compositing/2d.composite.solid.destination-atop.worker.js+++ /root/PatchLeaks-main/products/firefox_downloads/FIREFOX_RELEASE_98_END/firefox-FIREFOX_RELEASE_98_END/testing/web-platform/tests/html/canvas/offscreen/compositing/2d.composite.solid.destination-atop.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 = 'rgba(0, 255, 255, 1.0)';@@ -22,7 +22,7 @@ ctx.globalCompositeOperation = 'destination-atop'; ctx.fillStyle = 'rgba(255, 255, 0, 1.0)'; ctx.fillRect(0, 0, 100, 50);-_assertPixelApprox(offscreenCanvas, 50,25, 0,255,255,255, "50,25", "0,255,255,255", 5);+_assertPixelApprox(canvas, 50,25, 0,255,255,255, "50,25", "0,255,255,255", 5); 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 for better clarity/consistency rather than addressing security issues.

Here's the structured response:

Vulnerability Existed: no
[No security vulnerability found] [testing/web-platform/tests/html/canvas/offscreen/compositing/2d.composite.solid.destination-atop.worker.js] [Lines 13-14, 22]
[Old Code]
var offscreenCanvas = new OffscreenCanvas(100, 50);
var ctx = offscreenCanvas.getContext('2d');
_assertPixelApprox(offscreenCanvas, 50,25, 0,255,255,255, "50,25", "0,255,255,255", 5);
[Fixed Code]
var canvas = new OffscreenCanvas(100, 50);
var ctx = canvas.getContext('2d');
_assertPixelApprox(canvas, 50,25, 0,255,255,255, "50,25", "0,255,255,255", 5);

The changes simply rename the variable from `offscreenCanvas` to `canvas` for consistency, without any 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/testing/web-platform/tests/css/css-color/t424-hsl-values-b-2.html+++ /root/PatchLeaks-main/products/firefox_downloads/FIREFOX_RELEASE_98_END/firefox-FIREFOX_RELEASE_98_END/testing/web-platform/tests/css/css-color/t424-hsl-values-b-2.html@@ -6,7 +6,6 @@ <link rel="author" title="Intel" href="http://www.intel.com"> <link rel="help" href="http://www.w3.org/TR/css3-color/#hsl-color" /> <link rel="match" href="t424-hsl-values-b-2-ref.html" />-<meta name="flags" content="" /> <meta name="assert" content="Implementation of algorithm for converting hsl() colors to rgb() colors." /> <style>   table { border-spacing: 0; padding: 0; border: none; }

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

Vulnerability Existed: no  
No specific vulnerability found [File] testing/web-platform/tests/css/css-color/t424-hsl-values-b-2.html [Lines] 6  
[Old Code] `<meta name="flags" content="" />`  
[Fixed Code] (line removed)

Additional Details:  
The change simply removes an empty meta tag with a "flags" attribute, which doesn't appear to be security-related. This seems to be a cleanup change rather than a security fix. The "flags" meta tag was commonly used in test files but doesn't pose any security risk when empty or present.

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-contain/contain-content-004.html+++ /root/PatchLeaks-main/products/firefox_downloads/FIREFOX_RELEASE_98_END/firefox-FIREFOX_RELEASE_98_END/testing/web-platform/tests/css/css-contain/contain-content-004.html@@ -9,7 +9,6 @@   <link rel="match" href="reference/contain-layout-cell-001-ref.html">   <meta content="In this test, the td#contain should act as the containing block for div#abs-pos ." name="assert">-  <meta name="flags" content="">   <style>   table

Based on the provided code diff, I don't see any security vulnerabilities being fixed. The change simply removes an empty meta tag with a "flags" attribute, which doesn't appear to have any security implications.

Answer:
    Vulnerability Existed: no
    No security vulnerability found in this diff. Only removed an empty meta tag.

The diff shows:
- Removed line: `<meta name="flags" content="">`
This appears to be a minor cleanup rather than a security fix. There are no changes to actual functionality or security-related attributes.

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/text/2d.text.drawing.style.letterSpacing.measure.worker.js+++ /root/PatchLeaks-main/products/firefox_downloads/FIREFOX_RELEASE_98_END/firefox-FIREFOX_RELEASE_98_END/testing/web-platform/tests/html/canvas/offscreen/text/2d.text.drawing.style.letterSpacing.measure.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'); _assertSame(ctx.letterSpacing, '0px', "ctx.letterSpacing", "'0px'"); _assertSame(ctx.wordSpacing, '0px', "ctx.wordSpacing", "'0px'");

After analyzing the provided code diff, I don't see any security-related fixes. The changes appear to be purely cosmetic/refactoring changes where a variable name was changed from `offscreenCanvas` to `canvas`. There's no change in functionality or security implications.

Here's the structured response:

Vulnerability Existed: no
[No security vulnerability found] [testing/web-platform/tests/html/canvas/offscreen/text/2d.text.drawing.style.letterSpacing.measure.worker.js] [Lines 13-14]
[Old Code]
var offscreenCanvas = new OffscreenCanvas(100, 50);
var ctx = offscreenCanvas.getContext('2d');
[Fixed Code]
var canvas = new OffscreenCanvas(100, 50);
var ctx = canvas.getContext('2d');

The change is simply a variable renaming with no security impact. The functionality remains identical, just using a different variable name to reference the OffscreenCanvas object.

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/client/inspector/rules/test/browser_rules_color_scheme_simulation.js+++ /root/PatchLeaks-main/products/firefox_downloads/FIREFOX_RELEASE_98_END/firefox-FIREFOX_RELEASE_98_END/devtools/client/inspector/rules/test/browser_rules_color_scheme_simulation.js@@ -58,9 +58,10 @@   );   await waitFor(() => divHasDarkSchemeStyling());-  ok(-    true,-    "The rules view was updated with the rule view from the dark scheme media query"+  is(+    getRuleViewAncestorRulesDataTextByIndex(view, 1),+    "@media (prefers-color-scheme: dark)",+    "The rules view was updated with the rule from the dark scheme media query"   );   info("Select the node from the remote iframe");@@ -69,6 +70,11 @@   ok(     iframeHasDarkSchemeStyling(),     "The simulation is also applied on the remote iframe"+  );+  is(+    getRuleViewAncestorRulesDataTextByIndex(view, 1),+    "@media (prefers-color-scheme: dark)",+    "The prefers-color-scheme media query is displayed"   );   info("Select the top level div again");@@ -113,10 +119,20 @@     divHasDarkSchemeStyling(),     "dark mode is still simulated after reloading the page"   );+  is(+    getRuleViewAncestorRulesDataTextByIndex(view, 1),+    "@media (prefers-color-scheme: dark)",+    "The prefers-color-scheme media query is displayed on the rule after reloading"+  );   await selectNodeInFrames(["iframe", "html"], inspector);   await waitFor(() => iframeHasDarkSchemeStyling());   ok(true, "simulation is still applied to the iframe after reloading");+  is(+    getRuleViewAncestorRulesDataTextByIndex(view, 1),+    "@media (prefers-color-scheme: dark)",+    "The prefers-color-scheme media query is still displayed on the rule for the element in iframe after reloading"+  );   info("Check that closing DevTools reset the simulation");   await toolbox.destroy();

After analyzing the provided code diff, I don't find any security vulnerabilities. The changes appear to be test improvements and verifications rather than security fixes. Here's the analysis:

1. Vulnerability Existed: no
   The changes are test improvements focusing on verifying the display of media queries in the rules view. No security-related changes were made.

The diff shows:
- Replacement of a simple `ok(true,...)` assertion with more specific `is()` assertions that verify the actual media query text
- Addition of more test assertions to verify the display of `@media (prefers-color-scheme: dark)` in various scenarios
- No changes to actual functionality or security-related code

The changes are all within test files and focus on improving test coverage and accuracy rather than fixing security issues. The modifications verify that:
1. The rules view correctly displays media query information
2. The simulation persists correctly after reloading
3. The simulation works correctly in iframes
4. The simulation resets when DevTools are closed

These are all test improvements rather than security fixes.

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-min-width-block-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-min-width-block-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-width-block-1-ref.html">-  <meta name="flags" content=""> <style type="text/css"> body { width: 500px }

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

1. Vulnerability Existed: no
   No security vulnerability found [File] testing/web-platform/tests/css/css-values/calc-min-width-block-1.html [Lines] 5
   [Old Code] <meta name="flags" content="">
   [Fixed Code] (line removed)

Additional details:
- The change simply removes an empty meta tag that wasn't serving any purpose
- No security implications are apparent in this change
- The modification appears to be a minor cleanup rather than a security fix
- No known vulnerabilities are associated with empty meta tags in this context

The diff shows no evidence of any security vulnerabilities being fixed. The change is purely cosmetic/cleanup in nature.

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/security/sandbox/common/test/SandboxTest.cpp+++ /root/PatchLeaks-main/products/firefox_downloads/FIREFOX_RELEASE_98_END/firefox-FIREFOX_RELEASE_98_END/security/sandbox/common/test/SandboxTest.cpp@@ -16,6 +16,9 @@ #include "mozilla/net/SocketProcessParent.h" #include "mozilla/RDDProcessManager.h" #include "mozilla/RDDChild.h"+#include "mozilla/ipc/UtilityProcessManager.h"+#include "mozilla/ipc/UtilityProcessParent.h"+#include "mozilla/ipc/UtilityProcessSandboxing.h" #include "GMPService.h" #include "mozilla/gmp/GMPTypes.h" #include "mozilla/ipc/Endpoint.h"@@ -199,6 +202,29 @@         break;       }+      case GeckoProcessType_Utility: {+        RefPtr<UtilityProcessManager> utilityProc =+            UtilityProcessManager::GetSingleton();+        utilityProc->LaunchProcess(SandboxingKind::GENERIC_UTILITY)+            ->Then(+                GetMainThreadSerialEventTarget(), __func__,+                [processPromise, utilityProc]() {+                  UtilityProcessParent* utilityParent =+                      utilityProc ? utilityProc->GetProcessParent() : nullptr;+                  if (utilityParent) {+                    return InitializeSandboxTestingActors(utilityParent,+                                                          processPromise);+                  }+                  return processPromise->Reject(NS_ERROR_FAILURE, __func__);+                },+                [processPromise](nsresult aError) {+                  MOZ_ASSERT_UNREACHABLE(+                      "SandboxTest; failure to get Utility process");+                  return processPromise->Reject(aError, __func__);+                });+        break;+      }+       default:         MOZ_ASSERT_UNREACHABLE(             "SandboxTest does not yet support this process type");

Here's the analysis of the provided code diff:

Vulnerability Existed: no  
No specific vulnerability [File] security/sandbox/common/test/SandboxTest.cpp [Lines] 16-19, 202-229  
[Old Code]  
(No code for Utility process handling existed before)  

[Fixed Code]  
```cpp
      case GeckoProcessType_Utility: {
        RefPtr<UtilityProcessManager> utilityProc =
            UtilityProcessManager::GetSingleton();
        utilityProc->LaunchProcess(SandboxingKind::GENERIC_UTILITY)
            ->Then(
                GetMainThreadSerialEventTarget(), __func__,
                [processPromise, utilityProc]() {
                  UtilityProcessParent* utilityParent =
                      utilityProc ? utilityProc->GetProcessParent() : nullptr;
                  if (utilityParent) {
                    return InitializeSandboxTestingActors(utilityParent,
                                                          processPromise);
                  }
                  return processPromise->Reject(NS_ERROR_FAILURE, __func__);
                },
                [processPromise](nsresult aError) {
                  MOZ_ASSERT_UNREACHABLE(
                      "SandboxTest; failure to get Utility process");
                  return processPromise->Reject(aError, __func__);
                });
        break;
      }
```

Additional Details:  
This appears to be a feature addition rather than a security fix. The diff adds support for testing the Utility process type in the sandbox testing framework. It includes proper error handling and promise rejection for failure cases, but doesn't appear to address any specific vulnerability. The change is part of adding new functionality for the Utility process sandboxing support.

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/naga/src/proc/typifier.rs+++ /root/PatchLeaks-main/products/firefox_downloads/FIREFOX_RELEASE_98_END/firefox-FIREFOX_RELEASE_98_END/third_party/rust/naga/src/proc/typifier.rs@@ -472,6 +472,24 @@                     return Err(ResolveError::InvalidPointer(pointer));                 }             },+            crate::Expression::ImageSample {+                image,+                gather: Some(_),+                ..+            } => match *past(image).inner_with(types) {+                Ti::Image { class, .. } => TypeResolution::Value(Ti::Vector {+                    kind: match class {+                        crate::ImageClass::Sampled { kind, multi: _ } => kind,+                        _ => crate::ScalarKind::Float,+                    },+                    width: 4,+                    size: crate::VectorSize::Quad,+                }),+                ref other => {+                    log::error!("Image type {:?}", other);+                    return Err(ResolveError::InvalidImage(image));+                }+            },             crate::Expression::ImageSample { image, .. }             | crate::Expression::ImageLoad { image, .. } => match *past(image).inner_with(types) {                 Ti::Image { class, .. } => TypeResolution::Value(match class {@@ -683,6 +701,8 @@                     Mf::Asinh |                     Mf::Acosh |                     Mf::Atanh |+                    Mf::Radians |+                    Mf::Degrees |                     // decomposition                     Mf::Ceil |                     Mf::Floor |@@ -785,6 +805,16 @@                     Mf::ReverseBits |                     Mf::ExtractBits |                     Mf::InsertBits => res_arg.clone(),+                    Mf::FindLsb |+                    Mf::FindMsb => match *res_arg.inner_with(types)  {+                        Ti::Scalar { kind: _, width } =>+                            TypeResolution::Value(Ti::Scalar { kind: crate::ScalarKind::Sint, width }),+                        Ti::Vector { size, kind: _, width } =>+                            TypeResolution::Value(Ti::Vector { size, kind: crate::ScalarKind::Sint, width }),+                        ref other => return Err(ResolveError::IncompatibleOperands(+                                format!("{:?}({:?})", fun, other)+                            )),+                    },                     // data packing                     Mf::Pack4x8snorm |                     Mf::Pack4x8unorm |

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

1. Vulnerability Existed: not sure  
   [Potential Type Confusion/Incorrect Image Sampling] [third_party/rust/naga/src/proc/typifier.rs] [Lines 472-489]  
   [Old Code]  
   (No previous handling of ImageSample with gather)  
   [Fixed Code]  
   ```
   crate::Expression::ImageSample {
       image,
       gather: Some(_),
       ..
   } => match *past(image).inner_with(types) {
       Ti::Image { class, .. } => TypeResolution::Value(Ti::Vector {
           kind: match class {
               crate::ImageClass::Sampled { kind, multi: _ } => kind,
               _ => crate::ScalarKind::Float,
           },
           width: 4,
           size: crate::VectorSize::Quad,
       }),
       ref other => {
           log::error!("Image type {:?}", other);
           return Err(ResolveError::InvalidImage(image));
       }
   },
   ```

2. Vulnerability Existed: not sure  
   [Missing Math Function Implementations] [third_party/rust/naga/src/proc/typifier.rs] [Lines 683-705]  
   [Old Code]  
   ```
   Mf::Asinh |
   Mf::Acosh |
   Mf::Atanh |
   ```
   [Fixed Code]  
   ```
   Mf::Asinh |
   Mf::Acosh |
   Mf::Atanh |
   Mf::Radians |
   Mf::Degrees |
   ```

3. Vulnerability Existed: not sure  
   [Incorrect Bit Operation Return Types] [third_party/rust/naga/src/proc/typifier.rs] [Lines 785-805]  
   [Old Code]  
   ```
   Mf::ReverseBits |
   Mf::ExtractBits |
   Mf::InsertBits => res_arg.clone(),
   ```
   [Fixed Code]  
   ```
   Mf::ReverseBits |
   Mf::ExtractBits |
   Mf::InsertBits => res_arg.clone(),
   Mf::FindLsb |
   Mf::FindMsb => match *res_arg.inner_with(types)  {
       Ti::Scalar { kind: _, width } =>
           TypeResolution::Value(Ti::Scalar { kind: crate::ScalarKind::Sint, width }),
       Ti::Vector { size, kind: _, width } =>
           TypeResolution::Value(Ti::Vector { size, kind: crate::ScalarKind::Sint, width }),
       ref other => return Err(ResolveError::IncompatibleOperands(
               format!("{:?}({:?})", fun, other)
           ),
   },
   ```

Note: While these changes appear to be security-related improvements (adding proper type checking and handling for various operations), I cannot definitively confirm they fix specific known vulnerabilities without more context about the threat model and attack vectors. The changes do improve type safety and error handling, which generally helps prevent certain classes of vulnerabilities.

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.