GNOME Bugzilla – Bug 588374
crash in mbox's summary_update under spool provider
Last modified: 2009-11-04 12:31:00 UTC
What were you doing when the application crashed? Distribution: Fedora release 11 (Leonidas) Gnome Release: 2.26.2 2009-06-01 (Red Hat, Inc) BugBuddy Version: 2.26.0 System: Linux 2.6.29.5-191.fc11.i686.PAE #1 SMP Tue Jun 16 23:19:53 EDT 2009 i686 X Vendor: The X.Org Foundation X Vendor Release: 10601901 Selinux: Enforcing Accessibility: Disabled GTK+ Theme: Nodoka Icon Theme: Fedora GTK+ Modules: canberra-gtk-module, pk-gtk-module, gnomebreakpad Memory status: size: 286568448 vsize: 286568448 resident: 70193152 share: 25182208 rss: 70193152 rss_rlim: 18446744073709551615 CPU usage: start_time: 1247371518 rtime: 8777 utime: 6816 stime: 1961 cutime:9339 cstime: 450 timeout: 0 it_real_value: 0 frequency: 100 Backtrace was generated from '/usr/bin/evolution' [Thread debugging using libthread_db enabled] [New Thread 0xaa1ffb70 (LWP 364)] [New Thread 0xb64ffb70 (LWP 18562)] [New Thread 0xada28b70 (LWP 18561)] [New Thread 0xac626b70 (LWP 18551)] [New Thread 0xad027b70 (LWP 18550)] [New Thread 0xae429b70 (LWP 18548)] [New Thread 0xb22e5b70 (LWP 18541)] [New Thread 0xb44fdb70 (LWP 18540)] [New Thread 0xb4efeb70 (LWP 18534)] [New Thread 0xb58ffb70 (LWP 18532)] [New Thread 0xb70ffb70 (LWP 18529)] [New Thread 0xb7c73b70 (LWP 18528)] 0x00899424 in __kernel_vsyscall ()
+ Trace 216392
Thread 2 (Thread 0xaa1ffb70 (LWP 364))
----------- .xsession-errors --------------------- warning: difference appears to be caused by prelink, adjusting expectations warning: .dynamic section for "/usr/lib/libgsf-1.so.114" is not at the expected address warning: difference appears to be caused by prelink, adjusting expectations warning: .dynamic section for "/lib/libbz2.so.1" is not at the expected address warning: difference appears to be caused by prelink, adjusting expectations warning: "/usr/lib/debug/usr/lib/gconv/libGB.so.debug": The separate debug info file has no debug info warning: "/usr/lib/debug/usr/lib/gconv/libJIS.so.debug": The separate debug info file has no debug info warning: "/usr/lib/debug/usr/lib/gconv/libKSC.so.debug": The separate debug info file has no debug info --------------------------------------------------
*** Bug 588411 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
*** Bug 588149 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
may be related to bug 555665
*** Bug 588418 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
(In reply to comment #3) > may be related to bug 555665 I agree, seems like pretty the same thing, called just from some other place. Does anybody know the exact version for this trace? I'm looking for the exact line of the crash, what eds is trying to do there.
According to my records, this is evolution-2.26.2-1.fc11.i586 from Fedora 11. Since upgrading to Fedora 11, Evolution has been highly unstable, crashing like this once a day or more. In all cases for me, evolution was minimized and I was not at my computer at the time of the crash. I have since upgraded to evolution-2.26.3-1.fc11.i586. If I get the same failure with this release, should I post the stack trace?
> 596 count = camel_folder_summary_count(s); > 597 for (i=0;i<count;i++) { > 598 mi = (CamelMboxMessageInfo *)camel_folder_summary_index(s, i); > 599 /* must've dissapeared from the file? */ > 600 if (mi->info.info.flags & CAMEL_MESSAGE_FOLDER_NOTSEEN) { > 601 d(printf("uid '%s' vanished, removing", ... > 602 if (changeinfo) (In reply to comment #6) > According to my records, this is evolution-2.26.2-1.fc11.i586 from Fedora 11. Thanks for the information. It seems the summary got removed the message in time it didn't think of it. Reading the above trace a bit more closely, it seems to happen with the Outbox folder. > I have since upgraded to evolution-2.26.3-1.fc11.i586. If I get the same > failure with this release, should I post the stack trace? Only if it is different, the same is not necessary, as the above version shows the code line very nicely.
Created attachment 138790 [details] [review] proposed eds patch for evolution-data-server; Blind patch as discussed with Srag on IRC.
Milan, the code seems fine to me. But running a good test on that can prove that its right.
(In reply to comment #9) > Milan, the code seems fine to me. But running a good test on that can prove > that its right. Thanks, though I have not much idea how to reproduce this. If anyone of seeing this can make a test to this, then it will be great. Is here anyone able to give it a try?
*** Bug 589181 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Created commit 588374 in eds master (2.27.90+) let's see.
*** Bug 593975 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
*** Bug 594718 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
*** Bug 597557 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
*** Bug 600666 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***