Bug 870057

Created attachment 633325 [details]
File: core_backtrace

Created attachment 633326 [details]
File: environ

Created attachment 633327 [details]
File: limits

Created attachment 633328 [details]
File: backtrace

Created attachment 633329 [details]
File: smolt_data

Created attachment 633330 [details]
File: cgroup

Created attachment 633331 [details]
File: maps

Created attachment 633332 [details]
File: dso_list

Created attachment 633333 [details]
File: proc_pid_status

Created attachment 633334 [details]
File: var_log_messages

Created attachment 633335 [details]
File: open_fds

abrt captured the Xorg server version, but not the intel driver:

Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):
xorg-x11-server-Xorg-1.13.0-5.fc18.x86_64
xorg-x11-drv-intel-2.20.8-1.fc18.x86_64

*** Bug 870026 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

Can you reproduce this with intel 2.20.12?

Yes and no.  I grabbed the latest version in updates-testing -- 
xorg-x11-drv-intel-2.20.14-1.fc18.x86_64 -- and I restarted gdm in a loop(*) on vt2.

gdm failed to start 2 times out of 50.

However, Xorg did not crash on either of those failures.  The Xorg process was running, but gdm failed to appear.

In my /var/log/messages, I have this from the two failures:

Nov 29 07:20:49 firefly gdm-binary[2293]: WARNING: GdmDisplay: display lasted 0.063704 seconds
Nov 29 07:20:49 firefly gdm-binary[2293]: WARNING: GdmLocalDisplayFactory: maximum number of X display failures reached: check X server log for errors
Nov 29 07:20:49 firefly gdm[2293]: gdm-binary[2293]: WARNING: GdmLocalDisplayFactory: maximum number of X display failures reached: check X server log for errors

And again:
Nov 29 07:31:04 firefly gdm[7350]: gdm-binary[7350]: WARNING: GdmLocalDisplayFactory: maximum number of X display failures reached: check X server log for errors
Nov 29 07:31:04 firefly gdm-binary[7350]: WARNING: GdmDisplay: display lasted 0.051913 seconds
Nov 29 07:31:04 firefly gdm-binary[7350]: WARNING: GdmLocalDisplayFactory: maximum number of X display failures reached: check X server log for errors


Meanwhile, it appears that all of my Xorg.[1-5].log files are from the same time: Nov 29 07:31:04:

# grep Log.file Xorg.*.log
Xorg.0.log:[  1550.590] (==) Log file: "/var/log/Xorg.0.log", Time: Thu Nov 29 07:35:14 2012
Xorg.1.log:[  1300.300] (==) Log file: "/var/log/Xorg.1.log", Time: Thu Nov 29 07:31:04 2012
Xorg.2.log:[  1300.412] (==) Log file: "/var/log/Xorg.2.log", Time: Thu Nov 29 07:31:04 2012
Xorg.3.log:[  1300.465] (==) Log file: "/var/log/Xorg.3.log", Time: Thu Nov 29 07:31:04 2012
Xorg.4.log:[  1300.518] (==) Log file: "/var/log/Xorg.4.log", Time: Thu Nov 29 07:31:04 2012
Xorg.5.log:[  1300.571] (==) Log file: "/var/log/Xorg.5.log", Time: Thu Nov 29 07:31:04 2012


So it tried to start Xorg 5 times and all 5 failed?  I'll attach all my logs.


(*) gdm restart loop:

#!/bin/sh

while : ; do
    let i=i+1
    echo $i
    systemctl restart gdm.service
    sleep 10
    chvt 2
    sleep 3
done

Created attachment 654292 [details]
/var/log/messages

Created attachment 654293 [details]
Xorg.1.log

Created attachment 654294 [details]
Xorg.2.log

I won't bother attaching Xorg.{3,4,5}.log since they're identical to 1 and 2 except for the leading [timestamp] on each line.

Created attachment 654297 [details]
Xorg.0.log

For comparison, the Xorg.0.log from my current session which is working fine

I noticed a few other components had updates, so I updated to
  gdm-3.6.2-1.fc18.x86_64
  xorg-x11-server-Xorg-1.13.0-7.fc18.x86_64
  systemd-195-8.fc18.x86_64
and a few more

I repeated my test and gdm and Xorg successfully restarted 50 times in a row.

/me crosses fingers that this is resolved

I have this problem since upgrading to FC19. No problem with earlier versions (fc9 through fc17).

Xorg logs and messages show that on boot it successfully starts X, but then when gdm tries to start it crashes X repeatedly, finally giving "GdmLocalDisplayFactory: maximum number of X display failures reached: check X server log for errors"

It is not fatal: waiting a little and then starting gdm using "systemctl restart gdm.service" starts gdm with no problem. After that everything is stable. So it seems to be a timing issue.

I'm using nvidia, but since it has never had a problem with earlier kernels I would guess that the nvidia module is not to blame.

kernel-PAE-3.10.5-201.fc19.i686
gdm-3.8.3-2.fc19.i686
kmod-nvidia-3.10.5-201.fc19.i686.PAE-319.32-2.fc19.2.i686

This message is a reminder that Fedora 18 is nearing its end of life.
Approximately 4 (four) weeks from now Fedora will stop maintaining
and issuing updates for Fedora 18. It is Fedora's policy to close all
bug reports from releases that are no longer maintained. At that time
this bug will be closed as WONTFIX if it remains open with a Fedora 
'version' of '18'.

Package Maintainer: If you wish for this bug to remain open because you
plan to fix it in a currently maintained version, simply change the 'version' 
to a later Fedora version prior to Fedora 18's end of life.

Thank you for reporting this issue and we are sorry that we may not be 
able to fix it before Fedora 18 is end of life. If you would still like 
to see this bug fixed and are able to reproduce it against a later version 
of Fedora, you are encouraged  change the 'version' to a later Fedora 
version prior to Fedora 18's end of life.

Although we aim to fix as many bugs as possible during every release's 
lifetime, sometimes those efforts are overtaken by events. Often a 
more recent Fedora release includes newer upstream software that fixes 
bugs or makes them obsolete.

Fedora 18 changed to end-of-life (EOL) status on 2014-01-14. Fedora 18 is
no longer maintained, which means that it will not receive any further
security or bug fix updates. As a result we are closing this bug.

If you can reproduce this bug against a currently maintained version of
Fedora please feel free to reopen this bug against that version. If you
are unable to reopen this bug, please file a new report against the
current release. If you experience problems, please add a comment to this
bug.

Thank you for reporting this bug and we are sorry it could not be fixed.