Version-Release number of selected component: prelink-0.5.0-1.fc20 Additional info: reporter: libreport-2.2.2 backtrace_rating: 4 cmdline: /usr/sbin/prelink -av -mR -q crash_function: raise executable: /usr/sbin/prelink kernel: 3.15.0-0.rc7.git0.1.fc21.x86_64 runlevel: N 5 type: CCpp uid: 0 Truncated backtrace: Thread no. 1 (9 frames) #0 raise #1 abort #2 __assert_fail_base #3 __assert_fail #4 reopen_dso at dso.c:877 #5 prelink_exec at exec.c:441 #6 prelink at prelink.c:948 #7 prelink_ent at doit.c:132 #8 prelink_all at doit.c:253 Potential duplicate: bug 1003151
Created attachment 900561 [details] File: backtrace
Created attachment 900562 [details] File: cgroup
Created attachment 900563 [details] File: core_backtrace
Created attachment 900564 [details] File: dso_list
Created attachment 900565 [details] File: environ
Created attachment 900566 [details] File: limits
Created attachment 900567 [details] File: maps
Created attachment 900568 [details] File: open_fds
Created attachment 900569 [details] File: proc_pid_status
Created attachment 900570 [details] File: var_log_messages
Another user experienced a similar problem: One of my packages, sphinxtrain, is causing prelink to fail an assertion on Rawhide (and probably F21, too, but I haven't checked). When the daily cron job to run prelink kicks off, it fails upon reaching /usr/libexec/sphinxtrain/prunetree. The failed assertion is on line 1512 of dso.c: assert (!RELOCATE_SCN (dso->shdr[i].sh_flags)); Unfortunately, gdb is not much help: (gdb) print dso->shdr[i].sh_flags value has been optimized out (gdb) print i $1 = <optimized out> (gdb) print first_nonalloc $2 = <optimized out> Does this mean that something is wrong with the executable? Thanks. reporter: libreport-2.2.3 backtrace_rating: 4 cmdline: /usr/sbin/prelink -av -mR -q crash_function: raise executable: /usr/sbin/prelink kernel: 3.16.0-0.rc5.git1.1.fc22.x86_64 package: prelink-0.5.0-1.fc20 reason: prelink killed by SIGABRT runlevel: N 5 type: CCpp uid: 0
Can I provide any additional information to help track this down? What does the failed assertion actually mean?
This bug appears to have been reported against 'rawhide' during the Fedora 22 development cycle. Changing version to '22'. More information and reason for this action is here: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_Program_Management/HouseKeeping/Fedora22
Fedora 22 changed to end-of-life (EOL) status on 2016-07-19. Fedora 22 is no longer maintained, which means that it will not receive any further security or bug fix updates.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.