Bug 650175

Summary: [abrt] gvfs-archive-1.6.4-2.fc14: raise: Process /usr/libexec/gvfsd-archive was killed by signal 6 (SIGABRT)
Product: [Fedora] Fedora Reporter: eblix08
Component: gvfsAssignee: Tomáš Bžatek <tbzatek>
Status: CLOSED DUPLICATE QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa>
Severity: medium Docs Contact:
Priority: low    
Version: 14CC: alexl, bnocera, tbzatek, tsmetana
Target Milestone: ---   
Target Release: ---   
Hardware: x86_64   
OS: Unspecified   
Whiteboard: abrt_hash:b5063f501e415c5efadc02d3b0a48e2e552ad536
Fixed In Version: Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of: Environment:
Last Closed: 2010-11-09 16:29:04 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

Description eblix08 2010-11-05 13:32:12 UTC 
abrt version: 1.1.13
architecture: x86_64
Attached file: backtrace
cmdline: /usr/libexec/gvfsd-archive file=/media/iomega/Virtualization/ISOs/sda.iso
component: gvfs
crash_function: raise
executable: /usr/libexec/gvfsd-archive
kernel: 2.6.35.6-48.fc14.x86_64
package: gvfs-archive-1.6.4-2.fc14
rating: 4
reason: Process /usr/libexec/gvfsd-archive was killed by signal 6 (SIGABRT)
release: Fedora release 14 (Laughlin)
time: 1288961767
uid: 500

How to reproduce
-----
Attempted to backup a MS Windows installation on /dev/sda to a ISO using the following command.
FYI, I booted using a alternate device so /dev/sda was not mounted while performing the backup.

1. dd if=/dev/sda of="/tmp/sda.iso"

The command completed successfully and created a 80GB ISO as expected.

2. Using nautilus I tried to mount the ISO to verify the contents.

I probably shoud has used the following command.
dd if=/dev/sda1 of="/tmp/sda1.iso"
Comment 1 eblix08 2010-11-05 13:32:14 UTC 
Created attachment 458078 [details]
File: backtrace
Comment 2 Karel Klíč 2010-11-09 16:29:04 UTC 

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 621084 ***
Comment 3 Karel Klíč 2010-11-09 16:29:04 UTC 
This bug appears to have been filled using a buggy version of ABRT, because
it contains a backtrace which is a duplicate of backtrace from bug #621084.

Sorry for the inconvenience.