Bug 1105885 - [abrt] mate-file-manager: memset(): caja killed by SIGSEGV
Summary: [abrt] mate-file-manager: memset(): caja killed by SIGSEGV
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED INSUFFICIENT_DATA
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: mate-file-manager
Version: 20
Hardware: x86_64
OS: Unspecified
unspecified
unspecified
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Dan Mashal
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
URL: https://retrace.fedoraproject.org/faf...
Whiteboard: abrt_hash:7d1297e24fb7f6b017e4c4252ea...
Depends On:
Blocks:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2014-06-08 17:09 UTC by Tristan Santore
Modified: 2014-10-04 14:47 UTC (History)
4 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2014-10-04 14:47:29 UTC
Type: ---
Embargoed:


Attachments (Terms of Use)
File: backtrace (30.90 KB, text/plain)
2014-06-08 17:09 UTC, Tristan Santore
no flags Details
File: cgroup (172 bytes, text/plain)
2014-06-08 17:09 UTC, Tristan Santore
no flags Details
File: core_backtrace (11.67 KB, text/plain)
2014-06-08 17:09 UTC, Tristan Santore
no flags Details
File: dso_list (9.93 KB, text/plain)
2014-06-08 17:09 UTC, Tristan Santore
no flags Details
File: environ (1.62 KB, text/plain)
2014-06-08 17:09 UTC, Tristan Santore
no flags Details
File: exploitable (82 bytes, text/plain)
2014-06-08 17:09 UTC, Tristan Santore
no flags Details
File: limits (1.29 KB, text/plain)
2014-06-08 17:09 UTC, Tristan Santore
no flags Details
File: maps (53.69 KB, text/plain)
2014-06-08 17:09 UTC, Tristan Santore
no flags Details
File: open_fds (2.79 KB, text/plain)
2014-06-08 17:10 UTC, Tristan Santore
no flags Details
File: proc_pid_status (942 bytes, text/plain)
2014-06-08 17:10 UTC, Tristan Santore
no flags Details
File: var_log_messages (206 bytes, text/plain)
2014-06-08 17:10 UTC, Tristan Santore
no flags Details

Description Tristan Santore 2014-06-08 17:09:47 UTC
Version-Release number of selected component:
mate-file-manager-1.6.4-4.fc20

Additional info:
reporter:       libreport-2.2.2
backtrace_rating: 4
cmdline:        caja
crash_function: memset
executable:     /usr/bin/caja
kernel:         3.14.5-200.fc20.x86_64
runlevel:       N 5
type:           CCpp
uid:            1000

Truncated backtrace:
Thread no. 1 (8 frames)
 #0 memset at ../sysdeps/x86_64/memset.S:68
 #2 g_slice_alloc0 at gslice.c:1044
 #3 g_source_new at gmain.c:856
 #4 g_timeout_source_new at gmain.c:4477
 #5 ik_read_callback at inotify-kernel.c:372
 #9 g_main_context_iteration at gmain.c:3774
 #10 glib_worker_main at gmain.c:5473
 #11 g_thread_proxy at gthread.c:798

Comment 1 Tristan Santore 2014-06-08 17:09:50 UTC
Created attachment 903297 [details]
File: backtrace

Comment 2 Tristan Santore 2014-06-08 17:09:51 UTC
Created attachment 903298 [details]
File: cgroup

Comment 3 Tristan Santore 2014-06-08 17:09:52 UTC
Created attachment 903299 [details]
File: core_backtrace

Comment 4 Tristan Santore 2014-06-08 17:09:54 UTC
Created attachment 903300 [details]
File: dso_list

Comment 5 Tristan Santore 2014-06-08 17:09:55 UTC
Created attachment 903301 [details]
File: environ

Comment 6 Tristan Santore 2014-06-08 17:09:56 UTC
Created attachment 903302 [details]
File: exploitable

Comment 7 Tristan Santore 2014-06-08 17:09:57 UTC
Created attachment 903303 [details]
File: limits

Comment 8 Tristan Santore 2014-06-08 17:09:59 UTC
Created attachment 903304 [details]
File: maps

Comment 9 Tristan Santore 2014-06-08 17:10:01 UTC
Created attachment 903305 [details]
File: open_fds

Comment 10 Tristan Santore 2014-06-08 17:10:02 UTC
Created attachment 903306 [details]
File: proc_pid_status

Comment 11 Tristan Santore 2014-06-08 17:10:03 UTC
Created attachment 903307 [details]
File: var_log_messages

Comment 12 Wolfgang Ulbrich 2014-06-21 16:51:57 UTC
Can you describe a little more detailed what happend?
Did this issue occurs frequently ?

Comment 13 Tristan Santore 2014-06-21 17:15:46 UTC
Does Caja just crash a lot without reason ? Yes! Which is probably why there are quite a few bugzillas on this.

The full back traces should be able to identify the issue, so I am not quite sure what you are asking me, or indeed asking me for.

Can you be more specific what you require exactly ?

Regards,

Tristan

Comment 14 Wolfgang Ulbrich 2014-06-21 17:42:56 UTC
(In reply to Tristan Santore from comment #13)
> Does Caja just crash a lot without reason ? Yes! Which is probably why there
> are quite a few bugzillas on this.
> 
> The full back traces should be able to identify the issue, so I am not quite
> sure what you are asking me, or indeed asking me for.
Whoow, great theoratical words from someone who only click the button for open a bug report.
> 
> Can you be more specific what you require exactly ?
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Tristan
Sorry, without detailed 'step to reproduce' or a short description what you did if the issue ocours i have no chance to forward the issue to upstream.

PS: what is so difficult to understand with that question?
Can you describe a little more detailed what happend?
Did this issue occurs frequently ?

Comment 15 Tristan Santore 2014-06-21 18:40:56 UTC
I cannot tell you what I did, as I did nothing really, apart from clicking on windows, usually the shell, browser, etc.., which of course has nothing to do with Caja.

Caja crashes, is restarted. Maybe this is a heisenbug, because I have reported a few of these, which gives various reasons, most of which were reported by others.

I also ticked the, "I do not know what caused this problem", tick box. Maybe the Abrt guys need to amke this more clear in the bugs posted. Might be a good feature request for clarification.

Further, looking at the backtrace, it appears it segfaulted, because it was trying to jump to a non-existent memory location.

So, I am not sure what else I can put here. I would just file this bug, I am sure upstream can take the attachments and figure this out.

The Fedora retracer obviously could process the core dump to get the full backtrace, so that is all that should matter.

Further, please do no patronise me or other Fedora Contributors. It is not just clicking one button to report bugs, so if you start to patronise people, they will no longer bother filing bugs. Especially when they have to download the debug headers, which takes loads of discspace, takes time, and if you have a slow connection can take forever! So, one has to be a bit more appreciative that people are helping us out here, even if it seems not so helpful at first.

You cannot expect people to report more than a full backtrace, and upstream should be ok with that!

Thank you for looking into this and being the apckage co-maintainer for mate.

Regards,

Tristan

Comment 16 Wolfgang Ulbrich 2014-06-21 21:34:02 UTC
Sorry, without 'steps to reproduce' your bug report is useless.
Because without that hints nobody else than you can reproduce this issue.
Saidly, that you can't provide more informations as an automatic generated backtrace.
On my Systems this issue never occours , so i'm not able to provide 'steps to reproduce' for you.
For me this is not enough information to fix the issue, in my spare rare time.
If you don't agree with me, and i know you don't agree with me,
feel free to open a report directly at upstream.
https://github.com/mate-desktop/caja
Maybe those guys can help you if you only provide a backtrace.

regards


Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.