gvfsd-gphoto2 crashed with SIGSEGV in pthread_mutex_destroy()

Bug #940123 reported by Rishi Gadhok
10
This bug affects 1 person
Affects Status Importance Assigned to Milestone
gvfs (Ubuntu)
New
Undecided
Unassigned

Bug Description

Similar to the other bug under the same heading. This time, I just connected my Android Cell phone. So it exists for all kinds of phones.

ProblemType: Crash
DistroRelease: Ubuntu 12.04
Package: gvfs-backends 1.11.3-0ubuntu1
ProcVersionSignature: Ubuntu 3.2.0-17.26-generic-pae 3.2.6
Uname: Linux 3.2.0-17-generic-pae i686
NonfreeKernelModules: nvidia
ApportVersion: 1.92-0ubuntu1
Architecture: i386
Date: Fri Feb 24 13:42:40 2012
ExecutablePath: /usr/lib/gvfs/gvfsd-gphoto2
InstallationMedia: Ubuntu 11.10 "Oneiric Ocelot" - Release i386 (20111012)
ProcCmdline: /usr/lib/gvfs/gvfsd-gphoto2 --spawner :1.1 /org/gtk/gvfs/exec_spaw/5
ProcEnviron:
 SHELL=/bin/bash
 PATH=(custom, no user)
 LANGUAGE=en_IN:en
 LANG=en_IN
SegvAnalysis:
 Segfault happened at: 0xb738bc74 <pthread_mutex_destroy+4>: testb $0x10,0xc(%edx)
 PC (0xb738bc74) ok
 source "$0x10" ok
 destination "0xc(%edx)" (0x0000000c) not located in a known VMA region (needed writable region)!
 Stack memory exhausted (SP below stack segment)
SegvReason: writing NULL VMA
Signal: 11
SourcePackage: gvfs
StacktraceTop:
 pthread_mutex_destroy () from /lib/i386-linux-gnu/libpthread.so.0
 g_mutex_clear () from /lib/i386-linux-gnu/libglib-2.0.so.0
 ?? ()
 ?? ()
 ?? () from /usr/lib/i386-linux-gnu/gvfs/libgvfsdaemon.so
Title: gvfsd-gphoto2 crashed with SIGSEGV in pthread_mutex_destroy()
UpgradeStatus: Upgraded to precise on 2012-02-22 (2 days ago)
UserGroups: adm admin cdrom dialout disk libvirtd lpadmin plugdev sambashare

Revision history for this message
Rishi Gadhok (rishigadhok) wrote :
Revision history for this message
Apport retracing service (apport) wrote : This bug is a duplicate

Thank you for taking the time to report this crash and helping to make this software better. This particular crash has already been reported and is a duplicate of bug #938198, so 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. Please continue to report any other bugs you may find.

visibility: private → public
visibility: private → public
tags: removed: need-i386-retrace
To post a comment you must log in.
This report contains Public information  
Everyone can see this information.

Other bug subscribers

Remote bug watches

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