Bug 609232 - [abrt] crash in gvfs-smb-1.6.2-1.fc13: malloc_consolidate: Process /usr/libexec/gvfsd-smb was killed by signal 11 (SIGSEGV)
Summary: [abrt] crash in gvfs-smb-1.6.2-1.fc13: malloc_consolidate: Process /usr/libex...
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED DUPLICATE of bug 609133
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: gvfs
Version: 13
Hardware: i686
OS: Linux
low
medium
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Tomáš Bžatek
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
URL:
Whiteboard: abrt_hash:dcc7fa4562b4562af2a962184e5...
Depends On:
Blocks:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2010-06-29 17:40 UTC by Ken Simeon
Modified: 2015-03-03 22:50 UTC (History)
4 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2010-11-08 19:48:34 UTC
Type: ---
Embargoed:

Attachments (Terms of Use)
File: backtrace (27.35 KB, text/plain)
2010-06-29 17:40 UTC, Ken Simeon 		no flags Details
View All

Description Ken Simeon 2010-06-29 17:40:05 UTC 
abrt 1.1.1 detected a crash.

architecture: i686
Attached file: backtrace
cmdline: /usr/libexec/gvfsd-smb --spawner :1.7 /org/gtk/gvfs/exec_spaw/3
comment: I was trying to access a SMB share that I have bookmarked in nautilus.
component: gvfs
crash_function: malloc_consolidate
executable: /usr/libexec/gvfsd-smb
global_uuid: dcc7fa4562b4562af2a962184e5eaae55bcb20d9
kernel: 2.6.33.5-124.fc13.i686
package: gvfs-smb-1.6.2-1.fc13
rating: 4
reason: Process /usr/libexec/gvfsd-smb was killed by signal 11 (SIGSEGV)
release: Fedora release 13 (Goddard)

How to reproduce
-----
1. I opened nautilus
2. Click on a Bookmarked SMB items from within my "Places" list
3. Error reported
4. Selecting the bookmard again resulted in no error.
Comment 1 Ken Simeon 2010-06-29 17:40:06 UTC 
Created attachment 427749 [details]
File: backtrace
Comment 2 Karel Klíč 2010-11-08 19:48:34 UTC 

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 609133 ***
Comment 3 Karel Klíč 2010-11-08 19:48:34 UTC 
This bug appears to have been filled using a buggy version of ABRT, because
it contains a backtrace which is a duplicate of backtrace from bug #609133.

Sorry for the inconvenience.
Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.