Bug 633257

Summary:	Abrt generates wrong backtraces
Product:	[Fedora] Fedora	Reporter:	Nils Philippsen <nphilipp>
Component:	abrt	Assignee:	Karel Klíč <kklic>
Status:	CLOSED CURRENTRELEASE	QA Contact:	Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa>
Severity:	medium	Docs Contact:
Priority:	low
Version:	14	CC:	anton, dvlasenk, gareth.glaccum, iprikryl, jmoskovc, kklic, mtoman, npajkovs, rvokal
Target Milestone:	---
Target Release:	---
Hardware:	i686
OS:	Linux
Whiteboard:	abrt_hash:cbfef7a07a520455c6fd67acfaaf3cf19b224ca9
Fixed In Version:		Doc Type:	Bug Fix
Doc Text:		Story Points:	---
Clone Of:	631674	Environment:
Last Closed:	2012-08-10 11:28:51 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 Nils Philippsen 2010-09-13 12:37:15 UTC

I got this bug report with a dubius abrt-generated backtrace -- the flagged line (see below and in attachment #445888 [details]) shouldn't be able to cause a SIGSEGV.

Not sure what is wrong here, perhaps debuginfo not matching the executable/library?

+++ This bug was initially created as a clone of Bug #631674 +++

abrt version: 1.1.13
architecture: i686
Attached file: backtrace
cmdline: ufraw
comment: can supply an image if it would help (18mb in size)
component: ufraw
crash_function: _lf_detect_cpu_features
executable: /usr/bin/ufraw
kernel: 2.6.35.4-12.fc14.i686
package: ufraw-0.17-1.fc14
rating: 4
reason: Process /usr/bin/ufraw was killed by signal 11 (SIGSEGV)
release: Fedora release 14 (Laughlin)
time: 1283928439
uid: 500

How to reproduce
-----
1. cd to directory containing images (have not tested from different dir)
2. started ufraw as unpriveledged user from command line (gnome-terminal)
3. selected single RAW image (taken with canon 7d)
4. selected open-> crash

--- Additional comment from gareth.glaccum on 2010-09-08 02:51:18 EDT ---

Created an attachment (id=445888)
File: backtrace

--- Additional comment from nphilipp on 2010-09-13 08:33:50 EDT ---

Can you reproduce this error reliably? I'm asking because the the attached backtrace generated by abrt is surely broken, this code line ...:

	                    cpuflags |= LF_CPU_FLAG_MMX;

... shouldn't be able to cause a segmentation violation.

Comment 1 Jiri Moskovcak 2011-05-31 12:01:37 UTC

(In reply to comment #0)
> I got this bug report with a dubius abrt-generated backtrace -- the flagged
> line (see below and in attachment #445888 [details]) shouldn't be able to cause a
> SIGSEGV.
> 
> Not sure what is wrong here, perhaps debuginfo not matching the
> executable/library?
> 
- in that case I would expect a warning in GDB output and since it's not there I suspect abrt bt parser

Comment 2 Jiri Moskovcak 2012-08-10 11:28:51 UTC

There has been a lot of changes in the code since abrt-1.1.13 and the backtrace generation logic has been improved so I believe it's either fixed or doesn't happen so often...