nautilus crashed with SIGSEGV in g_closure_invoke()

[Matt Zimmerman]

Binary package hint: nautilus

This happened when I clicked one of the path elements in the toolbar to change to a parent directory, on a folder which was being served over sftp.

ProblemType: Crash
Architecture: amd64
Date: Sun May 31 18:49:26 2009
Disassembly: 0x0:
DistroRelease: Ubuntu 9.10
ExecutablePath: /usr/bin/nautilus
Package: nautilus 1:2.27.1-0ubuntu1
ProcCmdline: nautilus
ProcEnviron:
 PATH=(custom, user)
 LANG=en_GB.UTF-8
 SHELL=/bin/zsh
ProcVersionSignature: Ubuntu 2.6.30-6.7-generic
Signal: 11
SourcePackage: nautilus
StacktraceTop:
 ?? ()
 ?? () from /usr/lib/libgtk-x11-2.0.so.0
 g_closure_invoke () from /usr/lib/libgobject-2.0.so.0
 ?? () from /usr/lib/libgobject-2.0.so.0
 g_signal_emit_valist () from /usr/lib/libgobject-2.0.so.0
Title: nautilus crashed with SIGSEGV in g_closure_invoke()
Uname: Linux 2.6.30-6-generic x86_64
UserGroups: adm admin audio cdrom dialout fuse kvm lpadmin plugdev sambashare video
SegvAnalysis:
 Segfault happened at: 0x0:
 PC (0x00000000) not located in a known VMA region (needed executable region)!
SegvReason: executing NULL VMA

[Apport retracing service (apport)]

StacktraceTop:?? ()
_gtk_marshal_BOOLEAN__BOXED (closure=0x14add50,
IA__g_closure_invoke (closure=0x14add50,
signal_emit_unlocked_R (node=0x14aeec0,
IA__g_signal_emit_valist (instance=0x1a609b0,

[Saivann Carignan (oxmosys)]

Most likely that this is a duplicate of bug 375927

[Pedro Villavicencio (pedro)]

Seems to be related, Matt are you still facing this with nautilus 2.27.4 ? Thanks.

[Shane Fagan (shanepatrickfagan)]

I got this crash a few days ago in Nautilus 2.27.4 in karmic.

[Matt Zimmerman (mdz)]

On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 04:56:45PM -0000, Pedro Villavicencio wrote:
> Seems to be related, Matt are you still facing this with nautilus 2.27.4
> ? Thanks.

I only saw this crash once.

--
 - mdz

[Sense Egbert Hofstede (sense)]

Marking this bug as Invalid because it occurred in an early development version of Nautilus and it cannot be reproduced. Furthermore, the first function of the stacktrace couldn't be retraced, but that does leave the possibility of this bug being related to bug #509522 open. Therefore, please have a look there before reopening this bug if you can reproduce this issue.
Thanks!