Hide Forgot
Upon updating a Redhat 6.0 i386 system to Redhat 6.1, usernet (replaced with rp3) crashes when run (segmentation error). All packages required by rp3 (according to rp3.spec provided in the source distribution) are installed. A sample stack trace follows: stat("/etc/gnome/config//rp3", 0xbffff8a0) = -1 ENOENT (No such file or directory) stat("./gnome/config//rp3", 0xbffff894) = -1 ENOENT (No such file or directory) time(NULL) = 939987808 time(NULL) = 939987808 socket(PF_INET, SOCK_DGRAM, IPPROTO_IP) = 6 --- SIGSEGV (Segmentation fault) --- ------- Additional Comments From 10/18/99 23:26 ------- Upon upgrading a different i386 machine from RedHat 6.0 to RedHat 6.1, I found the same results, rp3 (usernet) crashes. I was able to fix this problem on both machines by running netcfg, and removing an un-named interface from the Interfaces section of the Network Configurator. As far as I can tell, the 'un-named' interface did not exist before performing the upgrade from 6.0 to 6.1. In result, rp3 runs fine.
Could the original reporter of this bug check bug 5780 and see if it's the same problem?
It seems very similar. Beyond the stack trace, I did run rp3 under xgdb, and the xgdb stack trace displayed an error similar to the one listed in bug #5780. Unfortunately, I can not recall the exact xgdb stack trace error display, but it should be easy enough to re-create.
Well, do any of the /etc/sysconfig/network-scripts/ifcfg-* file not contain a line starting with "DEVICE="?
The strace (stands for "system call trace" not "stack trace", by the way) doesn't really show what is going wrong; that's why I was asking about DEVICE=... The stack trace you get out of gdb (or another debugger) will tell me more. I'm going to assume that this is a duplicate of bug 5780, which is fixed for the next release. It's not "easy enough to recreate" for me because I don't see the error you are getting. It works great for me -- otherwise I would not have released it. :-) So without the stack trace and/or the information about the DEVICE line, I have to assume that it's a duplicate. *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 5780 ***