Bug 786229

Summary:	segfault in garbage collection
Product:	Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6	Reporter:	Jim Meyering <meyering>
Component:	ruby	Assignee:	Vít Ondruch <vondruch>
Status:	CLOSED CURRENTRELEASE	QA Contact:	BaseOS QE - Apps <qe-baseos-apps>
Severity:	unspecified	Docs Contact:
Priority:	unspecified
Version:	6.3
Target Milestone:	rc
Target Release:	---
Hardware:	Unspecified
OS:	Unspecified
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version:		Doc Type:	Bug Fix
Doc Text:		Story Points:	---
Clone Of:
Clones:	786231 786238 (view as bug list)		Environment:
Last Closed:	2012-04-03 11:09:06 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:
Bug Depends On:
Bug Blocks:	734713, 782573, 786231, 786238, 789120

Description Jim Meyering 2012-01-31 18:50:32 UTC

Description of problem: ruby segfaults in garbage collection
In deltacloud development, we've been plagued by the exact same 
problem documented here:

http://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/4339

Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): ruby-1.8.7.299-6.el6


How reproducible: every time


Steps to Reproduce:
1. run the reproducer from the above URL:
   http://bugs.ruby-lang.org/attachments/1446/REPRO4.rb
2.
3.
  
Actual results: segfault


Expected results: no segfault
 

Additional info:

Comment 2 Jim Meyering 2012-01-31 18:53:56 UTC

ps, I built ruby-1.8.7.352-3 but with that added patch[0],
and confirmed that the segfault we'd been getting every time
via deltacloudd is no longer appearing.

[0] http://bugs.ruby-lang.org/attachments/2243/ruby-1.8.7-marshal.patch

Comment 3 Vít Ondruch 2012-02-01 07:40:27 UTC

Jim, could you please do me a favor and report the same into the upstream bug? You see that I had no response from upstream for some while, so may be other voice can change it. I don't like to apply this patch directly, because as you see, the previous version which appeared to work correctly was leaking, so I'd like some review from upstream.

Comment 4 Jim Meyering 2012-02-01 08:25:43 UTC

(In reply to comment #3)
> Jim, could you please do me a favor and report the same into the upstream bug?
> You see that I had no response from upstream for some while, so may be other
...

Yes, I noticed that.  It's been 3 months.  I suspect that 1.8.7 is low priority for them.  I've added this note:

http://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/4339#note-13

Comment 5 Vít Ondruch 2012-02-01 08:43:16 UTC

Thank you. I appreciate that.

Comment 7 Suzanne Logcher 2012-02-14 23:29:57 UTC

This request was evaluated by Red Hat Product Management for
inclusion in the current release of Red Hat Enterprise Linux.
Because the affected component is not scheduled to be updated
in the current release, Red Hat is unfortunately unable to
address this request at this time. Red Hat invites you to
ask your support representative to propose this request, if
appropriate and relevant, in the next release of Red Hat
Enterprise Linux. If you would like it considered as an
exception in the current release, please ask your support
representative.

Comment 8 Vít Ondruch 2012-04-03 10:57:04 UTC

Hi Jim, 

The patch was released in 6.2.z to resolve rhbz#799959. Can we close this issue now?

Comment 9 Jim Meyering 2012-04-03 11:05:54 UTC

Hi Vit,
Sure, that's fine with me.