Bug 684600 - [abrt] evolution-data-server-2.32.2-1.fc14: g_mutex_free_posix_impl: Process /usr/libexec/e-addressbook-factory was killed by signal 6 (SIGABRT)
Summary: [abrt] evolution-data-server-2.32.2-1.fc14: g_mutex_free_posix_impl: Process ...
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED RAWHIDE
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: evolution-data-server
Version: 14
Hardware: x86_64
OS: Unspecified
unspecified
unspecified
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Matthew Barnes
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
URL:
Whiteboard: abrt_hash:7820b5c78b566ded1ceaec62fb9...
Depends On:
Blocks:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2011-03-13 18:53 UTC by Murat OGUZ
Modified: 2011-03-14 07:52 UTC (History)
2 users (show)

Fixed In Version: evolution-data-server-2.91.91
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2011-03-14 07:52:07 UTC
Type: ---


Attachments (Terms of Use)
File: backtrace (30.80 KB, text/plain)
2011-03-13 18:53 UTC, Murat OGUZ
no flags Details

Description Murat OGUZ 2011-03-13 18:53:10 UTC
abrt version: 1.1.17
architecture: x86_64
Attached file: backtrace, 31537 bytes
cmdline: /usr/libexec/e-addressbook-factory
component: evolution-data-server
Attached file: coredump, 47206400 bytes
crash_function: g_mutex_free_posix_impl
executable: /usr/libexec/e-addressbook-factory
kernel: 2.6.35.11-83.fc14.x86_64
package: evolution-data-server-2.32.2-1.fc14
rating: 4
reason: Process /usr/libexec/e-addressbook-factory was killed by signal 6 (SIGABRT)
release: Fedora release 14 (Laughlin)
time: 1300041983
uid: 500

How to reproduce
-----
1.  it's an error
2.
3.

Comment 2 Milan Crha 2011-03-14 07:52:07 UTC
Thanks for a bug report. I see that two threads are working with the same google addressbook, one is authenticating against the server, the other is also trying to authenticate against it, but is cancelling the previous request. The whole backend was rewritten during 2.91.x development cycle thus will be different in 3.0 (Fedora 15). I'm not sure whether also this will be addresses, but it probably should be.

Feel free to reopen if you'll see this in 2.91.91 or later version. Thanks in advance.


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