Ubuntu
nautilus package

nautilus crashed with SIGSEGV in g_cclosure_marshal_VOID__VOID()

Bug #516219 reported by lelamal on 2010-02-02

This bug report is a duplicate of: Bug #518891: nautilus crashed with SIGSEGV in g_cclosure_marshal_VOID__VOID(). Edit Remove

This bug affects 2 people

Affects		Status	Importance	Assigned to	Milestone
	nautilus (Ubuntu)	New	Undecided	Unassigned

Bug Description

Binary package hint: nautilus

As instructed (please, refer to Bug #422393 and Bug #515495), I am here filing a new bug in the event it is a new one indeed.

ProblemType: Crash
Architecture: i386
CrashCounter: 1
Date: Tue Feb 2 20:41:40 2010
DistroRelease: Ubuntu 9.10
ExecutablePath: /usr/bin/nautilus
InstallationMedia: Ubuntu 9.10 "Karmic Koala" - Release i386 (20091028.5)
Package: nautilus 1:2.28.1-0ubuntu3
ProcCmdline: nautilus
ProcEnviron:
LANGUAGE=en_GB.UTF-8
LANG=en_GB.UTF-8
SHELL=/bin/bash
ProcVersionSignature: Ubuntu 2.6.31-17.54-generic
SegvAnalysis:
Segfault happened at: 0x811ac41: mov 0xc(%eax),%edx
PC (0x0811ac41) ok
source "0xc(%eax)" (0x0000000c) not located in a known VMA region (needed readable region)!
destination "%edx" ok
SegvReason: reading NULL VMA
Signal: 11
SourcePackage: nautilus
StacktraceTop:
?? ()
?? ()
?? ()
g_cclosure_marshal_VOID__VOID ()
g_closure_invoke () from /usr/lib/libgobject-2.0.so.0
Title: nautilus crashed with SIGSEGV in g_cclosure_marshal_VOID__VOID()
Uname: Linux 2.6.31-17-generic i686
UserGroups: adm admin cdrom dialout lpadmin plugdev sambashare

Tags:

Revision history for this message

lelamal (lelamal-deactivatedaccount) wrote on 2010-02-02:

Dependencies.txt Edit (4.6 KiB, text/plain; charset="utf-8")
Disassembly.txt Edit (474 bytes, text/plain; charset="utf-8")
ProcMaps.txt Edit (57.3 KiB, text/plain; charset="utf-8")
ProcStatus.txt Edit (763 bytes, text/plain; charset="utf-8")
Registers.txt Edit (442 bytes, text/plain; charset="utf-8")
Stacktrace.txt Edit (1.6 KiB, text/plain; charset="utf-8")
ThreadStacktrace.txt Edit (3.8 KiB, text/plain; charset="utf-8")
XsessionErrors.txt Edit (57.5 KiB, text/plain; charset="utf-8")
usr_lib_nautilus.txt Edit (297 bytes, text/plain; charset="utf-8")

visibility:

private → public

Revision history for this message

Sense Egbert Hofstede (sense) wrote on 2010-02-06:

Thank you for taking the time to report this bug. However, it is a duplicate of bug #515495. Even though Sebastien requested you to report a new bug instead of reopening the old bug, you don't have to create three. One is enough.

Revision history for this message

lelamal (lelamal-deactivatedaccount) wrote on 2010-02-06:

> Thank you for taking the time to report this bug.
You're welcome.

> However, it is a duplicate of bug #515495.
And how would I know? If it was up to me to decide, I would have followed Apport, and considered bug #515495 itself to be a duplicate of Bug #422393. However, I have been told that was not the case for the latter was fixed, so I followed his advice.

> Even though Sebastien requested you to report
> a new bug instead of reopening the old bug, you don't have to create
> three. One is enough.
One may be enough now, but not before. Again: how would I know when could that have been enough? I had been instructed to use Apport to open a new bug for it might have been a different or new issue... but then I thought that Apport is the same tool whose precision I had been instructed to question and ignore, so I believed it safer to report each new instance of this particular bug and wait for retraicing. In the end, I am an average user, while Sebastien is the expert, and I would never question his word. Anyway, now that I have an official word on the matter, I know it is useless to keep reporting this bug.

Revision history for this message

Sense Egbert Hofstede (sense) wrote on 2010-02-06:

lelamal: The point is that bug #422393 was an old bug that was already marked as Fix Released when you encountered the issue. You were asked to open a new bug so Apport would upload all the log files and backtraces to Launchpad, allowing us to compare the difference.
Now there is a new bug report open with the debug information attached we have enough information to go to the next step in the process and verify whether the old bug returned, or whether you're reporting something new.

Please continue the discussion in bug #515495 from now as this is a duplicate. All conversation should actually take place in the master bug report, since duplicates are hidden from searches, unless you specifically say not to.