Nux

compiz crashed with SIGSEGV in g_data_set_internal()

Bug #917311 reported by nithael91 on 2012-01-16

This bug report is a duplicate of: Bug #921316: compiz crashed with SIGSEGV in g_datalist_id_set_data_full() from ... from unity::PanelTray::~PanelTray() from ... from unity::panel::Controller::Impl::OnScreenChanged. Edit Remove

This bug affects 9 people

	Status	Importance	Assigned to
Nux	Confirmed	Undecided	Unassigned
Unity	Confirmed	Undecided	Unassigned
nux (Ubuntu)	Confirmed	Critical	Unassigned

Bug Description

Crash when i change options

ProblemType: Crash
DistroRelease: Ubuntu 12.04
Package: libnux-2.0-0 2.0.0-0ubuntu1
ProcVersionSignature: Ubuntu 3.2.0-9.16-generic-pae 3.2.1
Uname: Linux 3.2.0-9-generic-pae i686
NonfreeKernelModules: fglrx
ApportVersion: 1.90-0ubuntu2
Architecture: i386
CrashCounter: 1
Date: Mon Jan 16 19:04:44 2012
ExecutablePath: /usr/bin/compiz
InstallationMedia: Ubuntu 12.04 LTS "Precise Pangolin" - Alpha i386 (20120101)
ProcCmdline: compiz
ProcEnviron:
PATH=(custom, no user)
LANG=pl_PL.UTF-8
SHELL=/bin/bash
SegvAnalysis:
Segfault happened at: 0xb6fb9af4 <g_datalist_id_set_data_full+356>: mov 0x0(%ebp),%ecx
PC (0xb6fb9af4) ok
source "0x0(%ebp)" (0xaaaaaaa8) not located in a known VMA region (needed readable region)!
destination "%ecx" ok
SegvReason: reading unknown VMA
Signal: 11
SourcePackage: nux
StacktraceTop:
g_datalist_id_set_data_full () from /lib/i386-linux-gnu/libglib-2.0.so.0
?? () from /usr/lib/i386-linux-gnu/libgobject-2.0.so.0
?? () from /usr/lib/i386-linux-gnu/libgtk-3.so.0
?? () from /usr/lib/libunity-misc.so.4
g_object_unref () from /usr/lib/i386-linux-gnu/libgobject-2.0.so.0
Title: compiz crashed with SIGSEGV in g_datalist_id_set_data_full()
UpgradeStatus: No upgrade log present (probably fresh install)
UserGroups: adm cdrom dip lpadmin plugdev sambashare sudo

Tags:

Revision history for this message

nithael91 (nithael91-gmail) wrote on 2012-01-16:

Dependencies.txt Edit (1.6 KiB, text/plain; charset="utf-8")
Disassembly.txt Edit (1.2 KiB, text/plain; charset="utf-8")
ProcMaps.txt Edit (47.9 KiB, text/plain; charset="utf-8")
ProcStatus.txt Edit (798 bytes, text/plain; charset="utf-8")
Registers.txt Edit (497 bytes, text/plain; charset="utf-8")
Stacktrace.txt Edit (6.0 KiB, text/plain; charset="utf-8")
ThreadStacktrace.txt Edit (13.3 KiB, text/plain; charset="utf-8")

Revision history for this message

Apport retracing service (apport) wrote on 2012-01-16:

StacktraceTop:
g_data_set_internal (dataset=0x0, new_destroy_func=0, new_data=0x0, key_id=53, datalist=0xac08008) at /build/buildd/glib2.0-2.31.8/./glib/gdataset.c:373
g_datalist_id_set_data_full (datalist=0xac08008, key_id=53, data=0x0, destroy_func=0) at /build/buildd/glib2.0-2.31.8/./glib/gdataset.c:680
g_object_real_dispose (object=0xac08000) at /build/buildd/glib2.0-2.31.8/./gobject/gobject.c:1001
?? ()
?? ()

Revision history for this message

Apport retracing service (apport) wrote on 2012-01-16: Stacktrace.txt

Stacktrace.txt Edit (857 bytes, text/plain)

Revision history for this message

Apport retracing service (apport) wrote on 2012-01-16: ThreadStacktrace.txt

ThreadStacktrace.txt Edit (13.2 KiB, text/plain)

Changed in nux (Ubuntu):
importance:	Undecided → Medium
summary:	- compiz crashed with SIGSEGV in g_datalist_id_set_data_full() + compiz crashed with SIGSEGV in g_data_set_internal()
tags:	removed: need-i386-retrace

Jean-Baptiste Lallement (jibel) on 2012-01-17

visibility:

private → public

Revision history for this message

Launchpad Janitor (janitor) wrote on 2012-01-17:

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

Changed in nux (Ubuntu):
status:	New → Confirmed

Didier Roche-Tolomelli (didrocks) on 2012-02-01

Changed in unity:
status:	New → Confirmed
Changed in nux:
status:	New → Confirmed
Changed in nux (Ubuntu):
importance:	Medium → Critical

Revision history for this message

Daniel van Vugt (vanvugt) wrote on 2012-04-06:

Thank you for taking the time to report this bug and helping to make Ubuntu better. This particular bug has already been reported and is a duplicate of bug 921316, so it is being marked as such. Please look at the other bug report to see if there is any missing information that you can provide, or to see if there is a workaround for the bug. Additionally, any further discussion regarding the bug should occur in the other report. Feel free to continue to report any other bugs you may find.