Ubuntu
evolution-data-server package

evolution-source-registry crashed with SIGSEGV in magazine_chain_pop_head()

Bug #1235177 reported by Stefan Ivarsson
94
This bug affects 13 people
Affects Status Importance Assigned to Milestone
evolution-data-server (Ubuntu)
Confirmed
Medium
Unassigned

Bug Description

Crashed after me ignoring authentication error from online accounts where 13.10 Beta keeps losing auth. because of 2-factor

ProblemType: Crash
DistroRelease: Ubuntu 13.10
Package: evolution-data-server 3.8.5-1ubuntu2
ProcVersionSignature: Ubuntu 3.11.0-11.17-generic 3.11.3
Uname: Linux 3.11.0-11-generic x86_64
ApportVersion: 2.12.5-0ubuntu1
Architecture: amd64
Date: Fri Oct 4 12:16:16 2013
ExecutablePath: /usr/lib/evolution/evolution-source-registry
InstallationDate: Installed on 2011-06-19 (838 days ago)
InstallationMedia: Ubuntu 11.04 "Natty Narwhal" - Release amd64 (20110427.1)
MarkForUpload: True
ProcCmdline: /usr/lib/evolution/evolution-source-registry
SegvAnalysis:
 Segfault happened at: 0x7f3065c7e9ba <g_slice_alloc+154>: mov 0x8(%rdx),%rbx
 PC (0x7f3065c7e9ba) ok
 source "0x8(%rdx)" (0x7f30696d10a0e8) not located in a known VMA region (needed readable region)!
 destination "%rbx" ok
SegvReason: reading unknown VMA
Signal: 11
SourcePackage: evolution-data-server
StacktraceTop:
 g_slice_alloc () from /lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libglib-2.0.so.0
 g_variant_new_from_bytes () from /lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libglib-2.0.so.0
 ?? () from /lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libglib-2.0.so.0
 ?? () from /lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libglib-2.0.so.0
 ?? () from /lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libglib-2.0.so.0
Title: evolution-source-registry crashed with SIGSEGV in g_slice_alloc()
UpgradeStatus: Upgraded to saucy on 2013-09-26 (7 days ago)
UserGroups: adm admin cdrom dialout lp lpadmin plugdev sambashare scanner

Revision history for this message
Stefan Ivarsson (stefanivarsson) wrote :
Revision history for this message
Apport retracing service (apport) wrote :

StacktraceTop:
 magazine_chain_pop_head (magazine_chunks=0x7f30695936b0) at /build/buildd/glib2.0-2.38.0/./glib/gslice.c:541
 thread_memory_magazine1_alloc (tmem=<optimized out>, ix=2) at /build/buildd/glib2.0-2.38.0/./glib/gslice.c:848
 g_slice_alloc (mem_size=mem_size@entry=40) at /build/buildd/glib2.0-2.38.0/./glib/gslice.c:1007
 g_variant_alloc (trusted=1, serialised=1, type=0x7f3065cf57f6) at /build/buildd/glib2.0-2.38.0/./glib/gvariant-core.c:478
 g_variant_new_from_bytes (type=type@entry=0x7f3065cf57f6, bytes=bytes@entry=0x7f30696e3f8f, trusted=trusted@entry=1) at /build/buildd/glib2.0-2.38.0/./glib/gvariant-core.c:514

Revision history for this message
Apport retracing service (apport) wrote : Stacktrace.txt
Revision history for this message
Apport retracing service (apport) wrote : StacktraceSource.txt
Revision history for this message
Apport retracing service (apport) wrote : ThreadStacktrace.txt
Changed in evolution-data-server (Ubuntu):
importance: Undecided → Medium
summary: - evolution-source-registry crashed with SIGSEGV in g_slice_alloc()
+ evolution-source-registry crashed with SIGSEGV in
+ magazine_chain_pop_head()
tags: removed: need-amd64-retrace
Marc Deslauriers (mdeslaur)
information type: Private Security → Public
Apport retracing service (apport)
tags: added: trusty
Revision history for this message
Launchpad Janitor (janitor) wrote :

Status changed to 'Confirmed' because the bug affects multiple users.

Changed in evolution-data-server (Ubuntu):
status: New → Confirmed
Revision history for this message
Michael (mnichau) wrote :

Isn't this a duplicate of bug #1195662 ?
I see it has been reported in 2013 so I wonder if there's a reason for it not to have been marked as duplicate all this time...

I keep getting the "evolution-source-registry crashed with SIGSEGV in g_slice_alloc()" error and it's been over a year now since #1195662 has been reported. I wonder if anyone is working on this.

Revision history for this message
Thomas A. F. Thorne (tafthorne) wrote :

I have just raised Bug #1527495 which was initially suggested as a possible duplicate of this bug and Bug #1195662. Now that apport has done its thing my new bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug #1279108 which could suggest that this bug is also a duplicate of that one.

Revision history for this message
Thomas A. F. Thorne (tafthorne) wrote :

So I have tripped over the same problem again, but this time only Bug #1195662 and Bug #1235177 were offered as suggestions. Bug #1527495 that I raised a while ago was not seen as a likely similarity.

It seems that I am able to periodically reproduce a problem, whether it is one of the three bugs listed above or the possibly mythical bug #1279108 I cannot say. However if there are any investigative steps I can take or work arounds to try please do get in touch.

Revision history for this message
Thomas A. F. Thorne (tafthorne) wrote :

Seen again today.

Revision history for this message
Thomas A. F. Thorne (tafthorne) wrote :

Seen again today and I like Michael suspect this might be a duplicate of bug #1195662. That would add another 6 duplicates to the other bug and up its heat by 36 and give it 11 more affected people which is another 44. That would give a total heat of 156+36+44=236. That would even be enough to get it near the heady heights of a privately marked bug.

To post a comment you must log in.
This report contains Public information  
Everyone can see this information.
Subscribing...

Other bug subscribers

Remote bug watches

Bug watches keep track of this bug in other bug trackers.