Bug 80207 – Nautilus Crashed when I ran the Start Here Icon [nautilus_file_is_local]

After an evaluation, GNOME has moved from Bugzilla to GitLab. Learn more about GitLab.
No new issues can be reported in GNOME Bugzilla anymore.
To report an issue in a GNOME project, go to GNOME GitLab.
Do not go to GNOME Gitlab for: Bluefish, Doxygen, GnuCash, GStreamer, java-gnome, LDTP, NetworkManager, Tomboy.

Bug 80207 - Nautilus Crashed when I ran the Start Here Icon [nautilus_file_is_local]


Summary:	Nautilus Crashed when I ran the Start Here Icon [nautilus_file_is_local]


Status:	RESOLVED FIXED

Product:	nautilus
Classification:	Core
Component:	general
Version:	unspecified
Hardware:	Other other

Importance:	High critical
Target Milestone:	---
Assigned To:	Nautilus Maintainers
QA Contact:	Nautilus Maintainers

URL:
Whiteboard:

Duplicates:	79806 80405 (view as bug list)
Depends on:
Blocks:

Reported:	2002-04-29 13:53 UTC by Rubén Dorta
Modified:	2004-12-22 21:47 UTC

See Also:
GNOME target:	---
GNOME version:	---

Attachments
Possible fix. Was using file after unreffing it. (670 bytes, patch) 2002-05-09 21:36 UTC, Damon Chaplin	none	Details \| Review

Description Rubén Dorta 2002-04-29 13:58:48 UTC

Package: nautilus
Severity: normal
Version: 1.1.13
Synopsis: Nautilus Crashed when I ran the Start Here Icon
Bugzilla-Product: nautilus
Bugzilla-Component: general
BugBuddy-GnomeVersion: 2.0 (1.115.0)

Description:
Description of Problem:
Nautilus Crashed when I ran the Start Here Icon

Steps to reproduce the problem:
1. Click in Start Here Button to launch it	
2. It crashes! 
3. 

Actual Results:


Expected Results:


How often does this happen?


Additional Information:




Debugging Information:

Backtrace was generated from '/usr/bin/nautilus'

[New Thread 1024 (LWP 13881)]
[New Thread 2049 (LWP 13882)]
[New Thread 1026 (LWP 13883)]
[New Thread 2051 (LWP 13884)]
0x40a6b669 in __wait4 () from /lib/i686/libc.so.6

+ Trace 21449

Thread 1 (Thread 1024 (LWP 13881))

#0 __wait4
from /lib/i686/libc.so.6
#1 __DTOR_END__
from /lib/i686/libc.so.6
#2 waitpid
at wrapsyscall.c line 172
#3 libgnomeui_segv_handle
at gnome-ui-init.c line 593
#4 pthread_sighandler
at signals.c line 97
#5 <signal handler called>
#6 nautilus_file_is_local
at nautilus-file.c line 1150
#7 should_read_link_info_sync
at nautilus-directory-async.c line 2789
#8 link_info_read_done
at nautilus-directory-async.c line 2809
#9 link_info_nautilus_link_read_callback
at nautilus-directory-async.c line 2845
#10 read_file_succeeded
at eel-vfs-extensions.c line 159
#11 dispatch_read_callback
at gnome-vfs-job.c line 237
#12 dispatch_job_callback
at gnome-vfs-job.c line 562
#13 g_idle_dispatch
at gmain.c line 3129
#14 g_main_dispatch
at gmain.c line 1617
#15 g_main_context_dispatch
at gmain.c line 2161
#16 g_main_context_iterate
at gmain.c line 2242
#17 g_main_loop_run
at gmain.c line 2462
#18 gtk_main
at gtkmain.c line 936
#19 main
at nautilus-main.c line 263
#20 __libc_start_main
at ../sysdeps/generic/libc-start.c line 129
#0 __wait4
from /lib/i686/libc.so.6





------- Bug moved to this database by unknown@bugzilla.gnome.org 2002-04-29 09:58 -------

Unknown version 1.1.x in product nautilus. Setting version to the default, "unspecified".
The original reporter (rdorta@yahoo.com) of this bug does not have an account here.
Reassigning to the exporter, unknown@bugzilla.gnome.org.
Reassigning to the default owner of the component, nautilus-maint@bugzilla.gnome.org.

Comment 1 Luis Villa 2002-04-29 14:30:24 UTC

*** Bug 79806 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

Comment 2 Luis Villa 2002-05-01 14:51:48 UTC

Probably 2.0.0- start-here segfaulting would be really, really
embarassing.

Comment 3 Damon Chaplin 2002-05-07 20:31:59 UTC

I can reproduce.

I clicked on Start Here then Applications and got this, which is
practically the same as the crash:

** (nautilus:29830): CRITICAL **: file nautilus-file.c: line 1150
(nautilus_file_is_local): assertion `NAUTILUS_IS_FILE (file)' failed

Comment 4 John Fleck 2002-05-09 13:22:34 UTC

*** Bug 80405 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

Comment 5 Damon Chaplin 2002-05-09 21:36:44 UTC

Created attachment 8330 [details] [review]
Possible fix. Was using file after unreffing it.

Comment 6 Damon Chaplin 2002-05-09 21:46:13 UTC

I'm not sure the above patch would fix it, though it seems sensible in
any case. And I haven't seen the problem again yet.

Comment 7 Alexander Larsson 2002-05-09 22:12:34 UTC

Yes. That looks correct. Please commit.

Comment 8 Damon Chaplin 2002-05-10 18:50:32 UTC

thanks. committed.

closing, but please reopen if you still see this.
I think there may be other ref/unref problems, as it is complex.