Ubuntu

lxdm-binary is using 100% of cpu time

Reported by Sworddragon on 2012-01-26
This bug report is a duplicate of:  Bug #892683: lxdm-binary load 100% cpu. Edit Remove
50
This bug affects 10 people
Affects Status Importance Assigned to Milestone
ecryptfs-utils
New
Undecided
Unassigned
lxdm (Ubuntu)
Undecided
Unassigned

Bug Description

I'm using Ubuntu 12.04 dev with lxdm 0.4.1-0ubuntu5. I have now booted my system (it was running ~1 day) and it seems some update of another package has caused something that lxdm-binary is now using 100% cpu time of one core.

There was a similar problem before with libglib2.0-0 which was already fixed with lxdm 0.4.1-0ubuntu5: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/lxdm/+bug/901407

Sworddragon (sworddragon) wrote :

I have figured out that using "restart lxdm" works as a workaround. lxdm-binary doesn't use 100% of one cpu core anymore until the next reboot.

Launchpad Janitor (janitor) wrote :

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

Changed in lxdm (Ubuntu):
status: New → Confirmed
Francisco Villar (villarf) wrote :

Also affects me using Lubuntu 12.04 beta, lxdm 0.4.1-0ubuntu6

Sworddragon (sworddragon) wrote :

I have figured out that this happens if the account with which you login into LXDM isn't loged in before. If I login with the console first and then with LXDM the problem doesn't happen anymore (this is why the "restart lxdm" workaround worked).

Sworddragon (sworddragon) wrote :

I have created a new user and the problem doesn't appear there. I tried to figure out what is the difference between both users. After some time I figured out that this problem appears only with ecryptfs encrypted home directories.

Yes, i just told lxdm to mount my ecryptfs home folder by adding a few lines to /etc/pam.d/lxdm
(following these intructions https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/System_Encryption_with_eCryptfs#PAM_Mount)

And after doing that CPU is at ~100%.

This is quite annoying, so i'll be switch to GDM until someone solves this

Sworddragon (sworddragon) wrote :

I have opened now an upstream bug report to speed up this a little: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&aid=3548688&group_id=180858&atid=894869

Sworddragon (sworddragon) wrote :

The ticket on Sourceforge is now closed because the maintainer thinks it is a bug related to the pam object of ecryptfs. He provided also a patch as a workaround which will maybe solve the problem.

affects: lxdm (Ubuntu) → ecryptfs-utils (Ubuntu)
Changed in ecryptfs-utils (Ubuntu):
status: Confirmed → New
Launchpad Janitor (janitor) wrote :

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

affects: ecryptfs-utils (Ubuntu) → lxdm (Ubuntu)
Changed in lxdm (Ubuntu):
status: New → Confirmed
Changed in lxdm (Ubuntu):
status: New → Confirmed
affects: lxdm (Ubuntu) → ecryptfs-utils (Ubuntu)
affects: ecryptfs-utils (Ubuntu) → lxdm (Ubuntu)
Francisco Villar (villarf) wrote :

This bug still exists with Lubuntu 12.10 and lxdm 0.4.1-0ubuntu6

Sworddragon (sworddragon) wrote :

What shall we do now? dgod don't want to change anything in LXDM to solve this problem. But we have a patch as a workaround from him. Does anybody know if it has any disadvantages? If not maybe the patch should be implemented.

Sworddragon (sworddragon) wrote :

These are the changes which dgod mentioned in a patch format.

The attachment "login_ecryptfs.patch" of this bug report has been identified as being a patch. The ubuntu-reviewers team has been subscribed to the bug report so that they can review the patch. In the event that this is in fact not a patch you can resolve this situation by removing the tag 'patch' from the bug report and editing the attachment so that it is not flagged as a patch. Additionally, if you are member of the ubuntu-reviewers team please also unsubscribe the team from this bug report.

[This is an automated message performed by a Launchpad user owned by Brian Murray. Please contact him regarding any issues with the action taken in this bug report.]

tags: added: patch
Gromobir (gromobir) wrote :

I'm still affected by this bug. I'm using the newest version of Trisquel it this still persists in there...

To post a comment you must log in.
This report contains Public information  Edit
Everyone can see this information.

Other bug subscribers

Remote bug watches

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