Description of problem: I think this happened when abrt tried to generated a trace for another bug that I have :) Version-Release number of selected component: gdb-headless-7.12.50.20170226-4.fc26 Additional info: reporter: libreport-2.9.1 backtrace_rating: 4 cmdline: /usr/libexec/gdb -batch -iex add-auto-load-safe-path /var/cache/abrt-di/usr/lib/debug -iex add-auto-load-scripts-directory /var/cache/abrt-di/usr/lib/debug -ex set debug-file-directory /usr/lib/debug:/var/cache/abrt-di/usr/lib/debug -ex file /usr/bin/python3.6 -ex core-file ./coredump -ex thread apply all -ascending backtrace 1024 full -ex info sharedlib -ex print (char*)__abort_msg -ex print (char*)__glib_assert_msg -ex info all-registers -ex disassemble crash_function: value_entirely_covered_by_range_vector executable: /usr/libexec/gdb journald_cursor: s=4f8d7f101de94929a4320b33f9a4bded;i=3d3a2;b=c21faf8f225246279ea1980ffcd9bfd2;m=8f77b0f2f;t=54e14b3529448;x=1ff552ef3de23fe kernel: 4.11.0-0.rc7.git0.1.fc26.x86_64 rootdir: / runlevel: N 5 type: CCpp uid: 1000 Truncated backtrace: Thread no. 1 (10 frames) #0 value_entirely_covered_by_range_vector at ../../gdb/value.c:401 #1 value_entirely_optimized_out at ../../gdb/value.c:426 #2 cp_print_static_field at ../../gdb/cp-valprint.c:642 #3 cp_print_value_fields at ../../gdb/cp-valprint.c:333 #4 cp_print_value_fields_rtti at ../../gdb/cp-valprint.c:454 #5 c_val_print_struct at ../../gdb/c-valprint.c:408 #6 c_val_print at ../../gdb/c-valprint.c:529 #7 val_print at ../../gdb/valprint.c:1118 #8 cp_print_value_fields at ../../gdb/cp-valprint.c:357 #9 cp_print_value_fields_rtti at ../../gdb/cp-valprint.c:454
Created attachment 1274318 [details] File: backtrace
Created attachment 1274319 [details] File: cgroup
Created attachment 1274320 [details] File: core_backtrace
Created attachment 1274321 [details] File: cpuinfo
Created attachment 1274322 [details] File: dso_list
Created attachment 1274323 [details] File: environ
Created attachment 1274324 [details] File: exploitable
Created attachment 1274325 [details] File: limits
Created attachment 1274326 [details] File: maps
Created attachment 1274327 [details] File: open_fds
Created attachment 1274328 [details] File: proc_pid_status
Created attachment 1274329 [details] File: var_log_messages
*** Bug 1446812 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Similar problem has been detected: This happened during some "analyze_CCpp" that ABRT was performing for another bug I encountered with another package (git-cola, and the bug is titled "python 3.6 killed with signal 11"). To reproduce, I can simply try again to send a bug report for the aforementionned bug, and this will happend again. reporter: libreport-2.9.1 backtrace_rating: 4 cmdline: /usr/libexec/gdb -batch -iex add-auto-load-safe-path /var/cache/abrt-di/usr/lib/debug -iex add-auto-load-scripts-directory /var/cache/abrt-di/usr/lib/debug -ex set debug-file-directory /usr/lib/debug:/var/cache/abrt-di/usr/lib/debug -ex file /usr/bin/python3.6 -ex core-file ./coredump -ex thread apply all -ascending backtrace 1024 full -ex info sharedlib -ex print (char*)__abort_msg -ex print (char*)__glib_assert_msg -ex info all-registers -ex disassemble crash_function: value_entirely_covered_by_range_vector executable: /usr/libexec/gdb journald_cursor: s=2452df2be3cf449b95dca72eecea6d51;i=112fb;b=47a368b6a782414c9f8d446c0184a575;m=27552bf8a;t=54f2801418b96;x=33a9c440d1c0df86 kernel: 4.11.0-1.fc26.x86_64 package: gdb-headless-7.12.50.20170226-4.fc26 reason: gdb killed by signal 11 rootdir: / runlevel: N 5 type: CCpp uid: 1000
(In reply to Gwendal from comment #14) > To reproduce, I can simply try again to send a bug report for the > aforementionned bug, and this will happend again. Could you send the core file on which GDB crashes from /var/spool/abrt/ ? I do not see from the bugreport which one it was. Also I do not want core of the GDB crashed on that original core. I want the original core. Thanks.
Could you please? rpm -qf /usr/bin/python3 or even: rpm -qa
Created attachment 1277623 [details] Result of "rpm -qa" on my system
Just out of curiosity: why is comment 16 tagged as "RED HAT CONFIDENTIAL"? That's the first time I'm seeing that.
(In reply to Gwendal from comment #19) > Just out of curiosity: why is comment 16 tagged as "RED HAT CONFIDENTIAL"? > That's the first time I'm seeing that. I was not sure whether you are aware of all the possible information disclosure from your system from the core file. So I at least made that core-file non-public. If you are really sure there cannot be any secure information of your system in that core file I can make the comment public again (or you could post the URL again).
(In reply to Jan Kratochvil from comment #20) > (In reply to Gwendal from comment #19) > > Just out of curiosity: why is comment 16 tagged as "RED HAT CONFIDENTIAL"? > > That's the first time I'm seeing that. > > I was not sure whether you are aware of all the possible information > disclosure from your system from the core file. So I at least made that > core-file non-public. If you are really sure there cannot be any secure > information of your system in that core file I can make the comment public > again (or you could post the URL again). Indeed I am not really aware of what such file would disclose... so thanks for doing that!
*** Bug 1517399 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
This message is a reminder that Fedora 26 is nearing its end of life. Approximately 4 (four) weeks from now Fedora will stop maintaining and issuing updates for Fedora 26. 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 '26'. 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 26 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 26 changed to end-of-life (EOL) status on 2018-05-29. Fedora 26 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.
I'm reopening the bug. Gwendal, I know it's been some time, but are you able to reproduce the bug again? Jan, do you remember if you were able to make any progress here? Thanks.
*** Bug 1528553 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
*** Bug 1529537 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
*** Bug 1528669 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
(In reply to Sergio Durigan Junior from comment #25) > Jan, do you remember if you were able to make any progress here? I do not remember anything regarding this Bug.
Sorry, I have no idea how to reproduce it, I would need to have a bug filled in abrt that would make abrt crash when trying to process it... and I never encountered such a bug since then =[.
This message is a reminder that Fedora 27 is nearing its end of life. On 2018-Nov-30 Fedora will stop maintaining and issuing updates for Fedora 27. 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 '27'. 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 27 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.
Because this is a bug from an old Fedora Release and there are no reproducers, I am closing this bug with "insuficient_data". If this problem happens again, feel free to open another bug. If you do, something that would help a lot is also submitting the coredump that was being analyzed.