Red Hat Bugzilla – Bug 868724
[abrt] libreoffice-core-188.8.131.52-2.fc17: osl_mapFile: Process /usr/lib/libreoffice/program/soffice.bin was killed by signal 7 (SIGBUS)
Last modified: 2012-10-22 09:13:40 EDT
Version-Release number of selected component:
libreport version: 2.0.14
cmdline: /usr/lib/libreoffice/program/soffice.bin --splash-pipe=6
:Thread no. 1 (10 frames)
: #0 osl_mapFile at /usr/src/debug/libreoffice-184.108.40.206/sal/osl/unx/file.cxx:1160
: #1 initialize at /usr/src/debug/libreoffice-220.127.116.11/store/source/lockbyte.cxx:501
: #2 store::FileLockBytes_createInstance at /usr/src/debug/libreoffice-18.104.22.168/store/source/lockbyte.cxx:916
: #3 store_openFile at /usr/src/debug/libreoffice-22.214.171.124/store/source/store.cxx:164
: #4 create at /usr/src/debug/libreoffice-126.96.36.199/solver/unxlngi6.pro/inc/store/store.hxx:447
: #5 ORegistry::initRegistry at /usr/src/debug/libreoffice-188.8.131.52/registry/source/regimpl.cxx:491
: #6 openRegistry at /usr/src/debug/libreoffice-184.108.40.206/registry/source/registry.cxx:173
: #7 open at /usr/src/debug/libreoffice-220.127.116.11/solver/unxlngi6.pro/inc/registry/registry.hxx:1219
: #8 (anonymous namespace)::SimpleRegistry::openRdb at /usr/src/debug/libreoffice-18.104.22.168/stoc/source/simpleregistry/simpleregistry.cxx:1152
: #9 (anonymous namespace)::SimpleRegistry::open at /usr/src/debug/libreoffice-22.214.171.124/stoc/source/simpleregistry/simpleregistry.cxx:1206
Created attachment 631147 [details]
Created attachment 631148 [details]
Created attachment 631149 [details]
Created attachment 631150 [details]
Created attachment 631151 [details]
Created attachment 631152 [details]
Created attachment 631153 [details]
Created attachment 631154 [details]
Created attachment 631155 [details]
In what circumstances did this happen? Did you start libreoffice while an update was in progress or something like that?
(In reply to comment #10)
> In what circumstances did this happen? Did you start libreoffice while an
> update was in progress or something like that?
Yes, looks like either that or low main memory/swap space like in comment 3 to bug 804429.
caolanm->sbergman: Doesn't look like its really a fixable scenario, right ?
(In reply to comment #12)
> caolanm->sbergman: Doesn't look like its really a fixable scenario, right ?
Not unless the reporter comes up with a reproducible scenario. So closing for now; feel free to reopen if there is further information.