Bug 448279

Summary:	Segfaulting applications/services during upgrade of glibc
Product:	[Fedora] Fedora	Reporter:	Robert Scheck <redhat-bugzilla>
Component:	glibc	Assignee:	Jakub Jelinek <jakub>
Status:	CLOSED WORKSFORME	QA Contact:	Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa>
Severity:	high	Docs Contact:
Priority:	low
Version:	rawhide	CC:	drepper
Target Milestone:	---
Target Release:	---
Hardware:	All
OS:	Linux
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version:		Doc Type:	Bug Fix
Doc Text:		Story Points:	---
Clone Of:		Environment:
Last Closed:	2008-08-03 03:31:48 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 Robert Scheck 2008-05-25 11:21:01 UTC

Description of problem:
When upgrading from glibc-2.8-3 to glibc-2.8.90-4, I saw several segfaulting 
applications and services - this is very worse.

May 24 18:24:50 tux kernel: smartctl[23022]: segfault at 0 ip 00000000 sp 
bfa6df14 error 4 in ld-2.8.90.so[110000+20000]
May 24 18:24:50 tux kernel: ps[23024]: segfault at 0 ip 00000000 sp bfd768a0 
error 4 in ld-2.8.90.so[110000+20000]
May 24 18:24:50 tux kernel: df[23023]: segfault at 0 ip 00000000 sp bf99e940 
error 4 in ld-2.8.90.so[110000+20000]
May 24 18:24:55 tux init: Re-executing /sbin/init

Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):
glibc-2.8-3
glibc-2.8.90-4

How reproducible:
Seems to be every time when upgrading from glibc-2.8-3 to glibc-2.8.90-4.

Actual results:
Segfaulting applications/services during upgrade of glibc

Expected results:
No segfaulting applications/services during upgrade of glibc like in the past

Comment 1 Ulrich Drepper 2008-08-03 03:31:48 UTC

I cannot imagine what happens.  There hasn't been any other report like this, nor is there any change explaining this.  I doubt this has anything to do with glibc.  Might be something in the kernel where pages are incorrectly replaced.

Anyway, I'm closing the bug since you most likely cannot reproduce this and there is absolutely not enough information (there is really no information at all).

We'll remember this if and when there is a similar report.