Ubuntu
boinc-app-seti package

setiathome_enhanced crashed with SIGSEGV in vfprintf()

Bug #409198 reported by Nikola M on 2009-08-05

This bug report is a duplicate of: Bug #377360: setiathome_enhanced crashed with SIGSEGV in vfprintf(). Edit Remove

This bug affects 1 person

Affects		Status	Importance	Assigned to	Milestone
	boinc-app-seti (Ubuntu)	New	Undecided	Unassigned

Bug Description

Binary package hint: boinc-app-seti

I just wake up this morning and I saw message about seti blew up during night.
This setup is working for a year here, I think, and Seti/Boinc is tuned to work only during the night hours.
Running Hardy/8.04.3 64-bit

ProblemType: Crash
Architecture: amd64
Date: Wed Aug 5 05:56:32 2009
DistroRelease: Ubuntu 8.04
ExecutablePath: /usr/lib/boinc-app-seti/setiathome_enhanced
NonfreeKernelModules: fglrx
Package: boinc-app-seti 5.13+cvs20060510-3
PackageArchitecture: amd64
ProcCmdline: setiathome_enhanced
ProcEnviron: PATH=/sbin:/bin:/usr/sbin:/usr/bin
Signal: 11
SourcePackage: boinc-app-seti
StacktraceTop:
?? () from /lib/libc.so.6
vfprintf () from /lib/libc.so.6
fprintf () from /lib/libc.so.6
?? ()
start_thread () from /lib/libpthread.so.0
Title: setiathome_enhanced crashed with SIGSEGV in vfprintf()
Uname: Linux 2.6.24-24-generic x86_64
UserGroups:

Tags:

Revision history for this message

Nikola M (nikolam) wrote on 2009-08-05:

Dependencies.txt Edit (1.6 KiB, text/plain; charset="utf-8")
Disassembly.txt Edit (664 bytes, text/plain; charset="utf-8")
ProcMaps.txt Edit (4.9 KiB, text/plain; charset="utf-8")
ProcStatus.txt Edit (684 bytes, text/plain; charset="utf-8")
Registers.txt Edit (977 bytes, text/plain; charset="utf-8")
Stacktrace.txt Edit (353 bytes, text/plain; charset="utf-8")
ThreadStacktrace.txt Edit (764 bytes, text/plain; charset="utf-8")

Revision history for this message

Charlie Kravetz (cjkgeek) wrote on 2010-02-14:

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 377360, 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.