Version-Release number of selected component: ibus-1.5.17-6.fc27 Additional info: reporter: libreport-2.9.5 backtrace_rating: 3 cmdline: /usr/libexec/ibus-engine-simple crash_function: g_thread_new executable: /usr/libexec/ibus-engine-simple global_pid: 12440 kernel: 4.16.7-200.fc27.x86_64 runlevel: N 5 type: CCpp uid: 16836 Truncated backtrace: Thread no. 1 (10 frames) #4 g_thread_new at gthread.c:830 #5 g_get_worker_context at gmain.c:5751 #6 g_task_thread_pool_init at gtask.c:1977 #7 g_task_get_type at gtask.c:592 #8 ensure_required_types at gdbusprivate.c:246 #9 _g_dbus_initialize at gdbusprivate.c:1950 #10 g_bus_get_sync at gdbusconnection.c:7266 #11 ?? #12 ?? #13 ??
Created attachment 1440112 [details] File: backtrace
Created attachment 1440113 [details] File: cgroup
Created attachment 1440114 [details] File: core_backtrace
Created attachment 1440115 [details] File: cpuinfo
Created attachment 1440116 [details] File: dso_list
Created attachment 1440117 [details] File: environ
Created attachment 1440118 [details] File: limits
Created attachment 1440119 [details] File: maps
Created attachment 1440120 [details] File: mountinfo
Created attachment 1440121 [details] File: namespaces
Created attachment 1440122 [details] File: open_fds
Created attachment 1440123 [details] File: proc_pid_status
(In reply to RobbieTheK from comment #1) > Created attachment 1440112 [details] > File: backtrace I cannot reproduce your backtrace. Are you still able to see your backtrace? #0 _g_log_abort (breakpoint=1) at gmessages.c:554 debugger_present = 1 #1 0x00007f84f63d07ac in g_log_default_handler (log_domain=log_domain@entry=0x7f84f6411fae "GLib", log_level=log_level@entry=6, message=message@entry=0x56053427c0e0 "creating thread 'gmain': Error creating thread: Resource temporarily unavailable", unused_data=unused_data@entry=0x0) at gmessages.c:3051 #2 0x00007f84f63d0a3d in g_logv (log_domain=0x7f84f6411fae "GLib", log_level=G_LOG_LEVEL_ERROR, format=<optimized out>, args=args@entry=0x7ffd9fcabed0) at gmessages.c:1341 #3 0x00007f84f63d0baf in g_log (log_domain=log_domain@entry=0x7f84f6411fae "GLib", log_level=log_level@entry=G_LOG_LEVEL_ERROR, format=format@entry=0x7f84f64214a2 "creating thread '%s': %s") at gmessages.c:1403 #4 0x00007f84f63f188b in g_thread_new (name=name@entry=0x7f84f6419392 "gmain", func=func@entry=0x7f84f63c9fd0 <glib_worker_main>, data=data@entry=0x0) at gthread.c:830 #5 0x00007f84f63cadd4 in g_get_worker_context () at gmain.c:5751 #6 0x00007f84f69715a5 in g_task_thread_pool_init () at gtask.c:1977 No locals. #7 g_task_get_type () at gtask.c:592
We upgraded to Fedora 28 haven't seen this one again yet. But we do see issues like https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1427721 and https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1594290 not sure if that helps or if they are related?
(In reply to RobbieTheK from comment #14) > We upgraded to Fedora 28 haven't seen this one again yet. But we do see > issues like https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1427721 and > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1594290 not sure if that helps > or if they are related? There are different issues at all and even different backtraces.
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.
(In reply to fujiwara from comment #15) > (In reply to RobbieTheK from comment #14) > > We upgraded to Fedora 28 haven't seen this one again yet. But we do see > > issues like https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1427721 and > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1594290 not sure if that helps > > or if they are related? > > There are different issues at all and even different backtraces. Since you haven't seen this issue, you should open a new issue with the different backtrace.