Bug 1032506

Summary: [abrt] evolution-3.8.5-2.fc19: call_old_file_Sync: Process /usr/bin/evolution was killed by signal 11 (SIGSEGV)
Product: [Fedora] Fedora Reporter: David Woodhouse <dwmw2>
Component: evolutionAssignee: Matthew Barnes <mbarnes>
Status: CLOSED DUPLICATE QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa>
Severity: unspecified Docs Contact:
Priority: unspecified    
Version: 19CC: adam, lucilanga, mbarnes, mcrha
Target Milestone: ---   
Target Release: ---   
Hardware: x86_64   
OS: Unspecified   
URL: https://retrace.fedoraproject.org/faf/reports/bthash/0fca75958214096d1157b8d2731ef3c9c2ef452b
Whiteboard: abrt_hash:a29c0eae90cea0386f544983ab720977506ec348
Fixed In Version: Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of: Environment:
Last Closed: 2013-11-21 10:26:26 UTC Type: ---
Regression: --- Mount Type: ---
Documentation: --- CRM:
Verified Versions: Category: ---
oVirt Team: --- RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: --- Target Upstream Version:
Embargoed:
Attachments:
Description Flags
File: backtrace
none
File: cgroup
none
File: core_backtrace
none
File: dso_list
none
File: environ
none
File: limits
none
File: maps
none
File: open_fds
none
File: proc_pid_status
none
File: var_log_messages none

Description David Woodhouse 2013-11-20 10:15:42 UTC 
Description of problem:
No idea; was just typing an email. System was very slow and swappy; perhaps exacerbated a race condition. There are global variables in this code...

Version-Release number of selected component:
evolution-3.8.5-2.fc19

Additional info:
reporter:       libreport-2.1.9
backtrace_rating: 4
cmdline:        evolution
crash_function: call_old_file_Sync
executable:     /usr/bin/evolution
kernel:         3.11.7-200.fc19.x86_64
runlevel:       N 5
type:           CCpp
uid:            1000

Truncated backtrace:
Thread no. 1 (3 frames)
 #0 call_old_file_Sync at camel-db.c:67
 #1 sync_request_thread_cb at camel-db.c:94
 #3 g_thread_proxy at gthread.c:798

Potential duplicate: bug 859691
Comment 1 David Woodhouse 2013-11-20 10:15:50 UTC 
Created attachment 826524 [details]
File: backtrace
Comment 2 David Woodhouse 2013-11-20 10:15:53 UTC 
Created attachment 826525 [details]
File: cgroup
Comment 3 David Woodhouse 2013-11-20 10:15:57 UTC 
Created attachment 826526 [details]
File: core_backtrace
Comment 4 David Woodhouse 2013-11-20 10:16:01 UTC 
Created attachment 826527 [details]
File: dso_list
Comment 5 David Woodhouse 2013-11-20 10:16:06 UTC 
Created attachment 826528 [details]
File: environ
Comment 6 David Woodhouse 2013-11-20 10:16:11 UTC 
Created attachment 826529 [details]
File: limits
Comment 7 David Woodhouse 2013-11-20 10:16:16 UTC 
Created attachment 826530 [details]
File: maps
Comment 8 David Woodhouse 2013-11-20 10:16:19 UTC 
Created attachment 826531 [details]
File: open_fds
Comment 9 David Woodhouse 2013-11-20 10:16:22 UTC 
Created attachment 826532 [details]
File: proc_pid_status
Comment 10 David Woodhouse 2013-11-20 10:16:25 UTC 
Created attachment 826533 [details]
File: var_log_messages
Comment 11 David Woodhouse 2013-11-20 10:20:21 UTC 
Also filed upstream, but it's called "Obsolete" there, while in Fedora it is still the latest bleeding-edge, shipped in the very newest stable version of the distribution. So I suppose it needs to be handled here rather than CLOSED/UPSTREAM.
Comment 12 Milan Crha 2013-11-21 10:26:26 UTC 
Well, I do not like to duplicate the effort by filling basically the same comments in two bugzillas - it's time consuming and tends to break when I forget of the connection between them.

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 859691 ***
Comment 13 David Woodhouse 2013-11-21 11:19:13 UTC 
(In reply to Milan Crha from comment #12)
> Well, I do not like to duplicate the effort by filling basically the same
> comments in two bugzillas - it's time consuming and tends to break when I
> forget of the connection between them.

That's fair enough. I'm aware that we fulfil more than one rôle — sometimes acting as 'upstream' and sometimes 'downstream'. But in this case upstream has clearly marked 3.8 as obsolete, while Fedora cannot tolerate that since it's still the latest release we've shipped.

So perhaps we should put on our 'downstream' hat (fedora) and argue with our 'upstream' hat that it would be better not to mark 3.8 as 'obsolete' in GNOME bugzilla just yet... :)
Comment 14 Milan Crha 2013-11-22 10:07:34 UTC 
:) My point would be more about "even the bug was found/noticed in 3.8, maybe it's still relevant on 3.10", because I didn't find any directly related change in 3.10 which would, even marginally, address the crash.