Hide Forgot
Description of problem: The backtraces from core dumps logged by systemd-coredump are wrong. Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): systemd-231-10.fc25.x86_64 How reproducible: Always Steps to Reproduce: 1. Crash something. 2. Compare the stack trace in "coredumpctl info -1" to the stack trace displayed by issuing the bt command to "coredumpctl gdb -1". Actual results: coredumpctl displays: Stack trace of thread 17586: #0 0x00000000004005e6 n/a (/home/nicholas/src/bitbucket/crash) while gdb displays: (gdb) bt #0 0x00000000004005e6 in crash () at crash.c:9 #1 0x00000000004005fa in f () at crash.c:12 #2 0x000000000040060b in e () at crash.c:13 #3 0x000000000040061c in d () at crash.c:14 #4 0x000000000040062d in c () at crash.c:15 #5 0x000000000040063e in b () at crash.c:16 #6 0x000000000040064f in a () at crash.c:17 #7 0x00000000004006b9 in main (argc=1, argv=0x7ffddd984a08) at crash.c:29 Expected results: The stack trace displayed by coredumpctl is broadly similar to the correct stack trace generated by gdb.
What is the value of ulimit -c?
unlimited That isn't a hypothetical scenario, btw. I wrote a little crashing app and tested coredumpctl gdb compared to coredumpctl info.
Sure, I believe you. Otherwise the output in #c0 would have to be written manually ;) There were some fixes applied after 231 was released. I'm trying to figure out if you're missing one of them, and it's the generation of the core file that fails, or if really our backtrace generation is broken. Does 'coredumpctl gdb' display something useful? If you do 'coredumctl dump > /tmp/f' and then start gdb on that file, does it produce a useful backtrace?
That backtrace in the original bug report is from "coredumpctl gdb". Extracting the core dump with "coredumpctl dump" gives the same result.
Hm, I think this might be fixed in the changes I made after systmed-231. I don't have a clean F25 machine at hand, but I want to upgrade my workstation to F25 and then I can test this properly.
This message is a reminder that Fedora 25 is nearing its end of life. Approximately 4 (four) weeks from now Fedora will stop maintaining and issuing updates for Fedora 25. It is Fedora's policy to close all bug reports from releases that are no longer maintained.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 '25'. 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 25 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 25 changed to end-of-life (EOL) status on 2017-12-12. Fedora 25 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.
This comment was flagged a spam, view the edit history to see the original text if required.