Bug 625128 - [abrt] crash in firefox-3.6.7-1.fc13: Process /usr/lib64/firefox-3.6/firefox was killed by signal 11 (SIGSEGV)
Summary: [abrt] crash in firefox-3.6.7-1.fc13: Process /usr/lib64/firefox-3.6/firefox ...
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED DUPLICATE of bug 625048
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: firefox
Version: 13
Hardware: x86_64
OS: Linux
low
medium
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Gecko Maintainer
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
URL:
Whiteboard: abrt_hash:ff52e293af867959226698f070d...
Depends On:
Blocks:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2010-08-18 16:31 UTC by bryanscionti
Modified: 2010-11-09 15:36 UTC (History)
1 user (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2010-11-09 15:36:06 UTC
Type: ---
Embargoed:


Attachments (Terms of Use)
File: backtrace (84.24 KB, text/plain)
2010-08-18 16:31 UTC, bryanscionti
no flags Details

Description bryanscionti 2010-08-18 16:31:54 UTC
abrt 1.1.1 detected a crash.

architecture: x86_64
Attached file: backtrace
cmdline: /usr/lib64/firefox-3.6/firefox
component: firefox
crash_function: nsProfileLock::FatalSignalHandler
executable: /usr/lib64/firefox-3.6/firefox
global_uuid: ff52e293af867959226698f070df01045cf94124
kernel: 2.6.33.6-147.2.4.fc13.x86_64
package: firefox-3.6.7-1.fc13
rating: 4
reason: Process /usr/lib64/firefox-3.6/firefox was killed by signal 11 (SIGSEGV)
release: Fedora release 13 (Goddard)

How to reproduce
-----
1. Was running firefox fine, then did hard shutdown by holding down power button.
2. After restarting computer, firefox crashes within 2 seconds of starting firefox every time.
3. Removed firefox and reinstalled it. Still the same problem.

Comment 1 bryanscionti 2010-08-18 16:31:56 UTC
Created an attachment (id=439440)
File: backtrace

Comment 2 Karel Klíč 2010-11-09 15:36:06 UTC

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 625048 ***

Comment 3 Karel Klíč 2010-11-09 15:36:06 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 #625048.

Sorry for the inconvenience.


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