Description of problem: Alpine segfaults upon IMAP login, every time. Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): alpine-2.20-2.fc23.i686.rpm How reproducible: Every time Steps to Reproduce: 1. Run alpine 2. Login to inbox via IMAP Actual results: Segfaults. The server is dovecot 2.2.10. I rolled back to alpine-2.20-2.fc22.i686.rpm (i.e. the current Alpine RPM from Fedora 22 instead of Fedora 23) - this works perfectly.
I have the same problem with alpine-2.20-2.fc23.i686.rpm: it crashes on opening with the message: Problem detected: "Received abort signal(sig=11)" I thought it might be a problem with my .pinerc but if I remove it alpine gives me the welcome window and whatever I do next I get the same crash (and a copy of the default .pinerc is created). Rolling back to alpine-2.20-2.fc22.i686.rpm works fine.
Possible to get a backtrace or abrt report? Fwiw, I don't see crashes on x86_64, connecting to my office365/imap accounts. Can you test this build? http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=12650332
That one works for me.
OK, seems hardening *may* have something to do with it, still, I'd like to document the evidence with a backtrace if possible before considering issuing any official updates. $ sudo debuginfo-install alpine $ sudo dnf install gdb $ gdb alpine (then type 'run'), and run as usual until it crashes and you get back to a gdb> prompt, then type: thread apply all backtrace and paste the output here. (or let abrt submit it, it should be catching this too)
Here you go: * * * (gdb) thread apply all backtrace Thread 3 (Thread 0xb7129b40 (LWP 17004)): #0 0xb7a862e8 in clone () from /lib/libc.so.6 #1 0x003d0f00 in ?? () #2 0x00000000 in ?? () Thread 2 (Thread 0xb7fd7b40 (LWP 17002)): #0 0x80060c70 in _Unwind_Resume@plt () #1 0x80085b78 in __pthread_cleanup_routine (__frame=<synthetic pointer>) at /usr/include/pthread.h:611 #2 do_after (data=0x8062ce98) at after.c:166 #3 0xb7b61452 in start_thread () from /lib/libpthread.so.0 #4 0xb7a862fe in clone () from /lib/libc.so.6 Thread 1 (Thread 0xb7582b00 (LWP 16997)): #0 0xb7a862e8 in clone () from /lib/libc.so.6 #1 0xb7129b40 in ?? () #2 0x00000000 in ?? () * * * Abrt isn't active. The machine is a 10 year-old Pentium 4 (but still in active daily use), so I needed to minimise the amount of background stuff running.
P.S. There's also this message: Missing separate debuginfos, use: dnf debuginfo-install bzip2-libs-1.0.6-19.fc23.i686 krb5-libs-1.14-4.fc23.i686 sssd-client-1.13.3-1.fc23.i686 systemd-libs-222-10.fc23.i686 But, doing that results in a message that no debuginfo package exists for bzip2-libs.
That backtrace doesn't seem to include any actual crash, are you sure it crashed ???
Yes - there's this printed before I run the 'thread apply all' command: Program received signal SIGSEGV, Segmentation fault. [Switching to Thread 0xb7fd7b40 (LWP 1402)] 0x80060c70 in _Unwind_Resume@plt ()
(In reply to David Anderson from comment #5) > [omit backtrace...] > Abrt isn't active. The machine is a 10 year-old Pentium 4 (but still in > active daily use), so I needed to minimise the amount of background stuff > running. This is hard to figure out, but here is an idea. If you have colors enabled, disable them and try again. My hunch is that it is the color code that is causing this. -- Eduardo
Hi Eduardo, I don't have colours enabled - I'm not entirely sure which feature this refers to, but I can say that there's only monotone colours, and in the config, all settings that mention "color" are off. David
(In reply to David Anderson from comment #10) > I don't have colours enabled My suggestion is that you build the package by yourself. In some instances this cures the problem. Thank you. -- Eduardo
Here at our department we have the same problem, after upgrading from fedora 22 to fedora 23: $ alpine Problem detected: "Received abort signal(sig=11)". Alpine Exiting. $ installed version: alpine-2.20-2.fc23.i686
Can you test the build from comment #2 ? Does that help for you too? If so, until this is sorted out, we can disable hardening.
I tested it and it works!
I should have mentioned that we have i686 architecture in all three machines where we use alpine. Maybe x64 is unaffected.
Are there any news? I am available for testing, if necessary. Otherwise it seems mandatory to produce a new rpm with hardening disabled.
alpine-2.20-4.fc23 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 23. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-cc15560960
alpine-2.20-4.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-cc15560960
I just tried alpine-2.20-1.fc23.i686 in updates-testing and I still have the same problem: it crashes on opening with the message: Problem detected: "Received abort signal(sig=11)" Reverting to alpine-2.20-2.fc22.i686 fixes it for me.
Sorry, ignore the above (and fix the fedora instructions). Following instructions, I did: dnf install alpine --enablerepo=updates-testing which should have installed alpine-2.20-4.fc23 but it installed alpine-2.20-1.fc23
Maybe wait a bit, the push notification above was only for fedora's primary mirror, there is always some delay before it propogates to all other mirrors.
Thanks for the advice to wait. alpine-2.20-4.fc23 is working fine for me.
alpine-2.20-4.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
This message is a reminder that Fedora 23 is nearing its end of life. Approximately 4 (four) weeks from now Fedora will stop maintaining and issuing updates for Fedora 23. 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 EOL if it remains open with a Fedora 'version' of '23'. 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. Thank you for reporting this issue and we are sorry that we were not able to fix it before Fedora 23 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 this bug is closed as described in the policy above. 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 23 changed to end-of-life (EOL) status on 2016-12-20. Fedora 23 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.