Bug 208692

Summary:	fc-cache abort during upgrade
Product:	[Fedora] Fedora	Reporter:	David Woodhouse <dwmw2>
Component:	fontconfig	Assignee:	Behdad Esfahbod <behdad>
Status:	CLOSED WORKSFORME	QA Contact:
Severity:	medium	Docs Contact:
Priority:	medium
Version:	rawhide	CC:	triage
Target Milestone:	---
Target Release:	---
Hardware:	All
OS:	Linux
Whiteboard:	bzcl34nup
Fixed In Version:		Doc Type:	Bug Fix
Doc Text:		Story Points:	---
Clone Of:		Environment:
Last Closed:	2008-05-04 20:12:46 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:

Description David Woodhouse 2006-09-30 09:22:40 UTC

During upgrade FC5->FC6, fc-cache is observed to fail

*** buffer overflow detected ***: /usr/bin/fc-cache terminated

from within sprintf_chk() from unnamed function from FcDirCacheWrite from FcDirSave.

Will install debuginfo and get proper backtrace when the install has finished.

Comment 1 Bug Zapper 2008-04-03 18:22:33 UTC

Based on the date this bug was created, it appears to have been reported
against rawhide during the development of a Fedora release that is no
longer maintained. In order to refocus our efforts as a project we are
flagging all of the open bugs for releases which are no longer
maintained. If this bug remains in NEEDINFO thirty (30) days from now,
we will automatically close it.

If you can reproduce this bug in a maintained Fedora version (7, 8, or
rawhide), please change this bug to the respective version and change
the status to ASSIGNED. (If you're unable to change the bug's version
or status, add a comment to the bug and someone will change it for you.)

Thanks for your help, and we apologize again that we haven't handled
these issues to this point.

The process we're following is outlined here:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers/F9CleanUp

We will be following the process here:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers/HouseKeeping to ensure this
doesn't happen again.

Comment 2 Behdad Esfahbod 2008-05-04 20:12:46 UTC

Too old a report to be useful.  The bug is most definitely fixed already.