I got this bug report with a dubius abrt-generated backtrace -- the flagged line (see below and in attachment #445888 [details]) shouldn't be able to cause a SIGSEGV. Not sure what is wrong here, perhaps debuginfo not matching the executable/library? +++ This bug was initially created as a clone of Bug #631674 +++ abrt version: 1.1.13 architecture: i686 Attached file: backtrace cmdline: ufraw comment: can supply an image if it would help (18mb in size) component: ufraw crash_function: _lf_detect_cpu_features executable: /usr/bin/ufraw kernel: 2.6.35.4-12.fc14.i686 package: ufraw-0.17-1.fc14 rating: 4 reason: Process /usr/bin/ufraw was killed by signal 11 (SIGSEGV) release: Fedora release 14 (Laughlin) time: 1283928439 uid: 500 How to reproduce ----- 1. cd to directory containing images (have not tested from different dir) 2. started ufraw as unpriveledged user from command line (gnome-terminal) 3. selected single RAW image (taken with canon 7d) 4. selected open-> crash --- Additional comment from gareth.glaccum on 2010-09-08 02:51:18 EDT --- Created an attachment (id=445888) File: backtrace --- Additional comment from nphilipp on 2010-09-13 08:33:50 EDT --- Can you reproduce this error reliably? I'm asking because the the attached backtrace generated by abrt is surely broken, this code line ...: cpuflags |= LF_CPU_FLAG_MMX; ... shouldn't be able to cause a segmentation violation.
(In reply to comment #0) > I got this bug report with a dubius abrt-generated backtrace -- the flagged > line (see below and in attachment #445888 [details]) shouldn't be able to cause a > SIGSEGV. > > Not sure what is wrong here, perhaps debuginfo not matching the > executable/library? > - in that case I would expect a warning in GDB output and since it's not there I suspect abrt bt parser
There has been a lot of changes in the code since abrt-1.1.13 and the backtrace generation logic has been improved so I believe it's either fixed or doesn't happen so often...