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 360533 - Evolution crashes when deleting or disabling imap account
Evolution crashes when deleting or disabling imap account
Status: RESOLVED DUPLICATE of bug 324168
Product: evolution
Classification: Applications
Component: general
unspecified
Other other
: High critical
: ---
Assigned To: Evolution Shell Maintainers Team
Evolution QA team
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
 
Reported: 2006-10-08 00:54 UTC by Maximilian
Modified: 2007-06-21 16:44 UTC
See Also:
GNOME target: ---
GNOME version: 2.17/2.18


Attachments
better trace (12.99 KB, text/plain)
2006-10-08 01:04 UTC, connexin
Details
backtrace, reproduced with current cvs HEAD (13.95 KB, text/plain)
2006-10-08 11:31 UTC, connexin
Details

Description Maximilian 2006-10-08 00:53:44 UTC
Distribution: Debian testing/unstable
Package: Evolution
Severity: Normal
Version: GNOME2.14.3 (null)
Gnome-Distributor: Debian
Synopsis: Evolution crashes when deleting or disabling imap account
Bugzilla-Product: Evolution
Bugzilla-Component: Miscellaneous
Bugzilla-Version: (null)
BugBuddy-GnomeVersion: 2.0 (2.16.0)
Description:

Steps to reproduce the crash:
1.  delete an imap account

How often does this happen?
every time




Debugging Information:

Backtrace was generated from '/usr/bin/evolution-2.8'

(no debugging symbols found)
Using host libthread_db library "/lib/libthread_db.so.1".
(no debugging symbols found)
[Thread debugging using libthread_db enabled]
[New Thread -1233307040 (LWP 4302)]
[New Thread -1329280080 (LWP 4394)]
[New Thread -1320891472 (LWP 4393)]
[New Thread -1312502864 (LWP 4346)]
[New Thread -1278944336 (LWP 4337)]
[New Thread -1261773904 (LWP 4333)]
[New Thread -1270555728 (LWP 4332)]
[New Thread -1253254224 (LWP 4330)]
0xb7719c21 in __waitpid_nocancel () from /lib/libpthread.so.0

Thread 8 (Thread -1253254224 (LWP 4330))

  • #0 ___newselect_nocancel
    from /lib/libc.so.6
  • #1 e_msgport_wait
    from /usr/lib/libedataserver-1.2.so.7
  • #2 e_msgport_reply
    from /usr/lib/libedataserver-1.2.so.7
  • #3 start_thread
    from /lib/libpthread.so.0
  • #4 ??
  • #5 ??
  • #6 ??
  • #7 ??
  • #8 ??

Thread 6 (Thread -1261773904 (LWP 4333))

  • #0 ___newselect_nocancel
    from /lib/libc.so.6
  • #1 e_msgport_wait
    from /usr/lib/libedataserver-1.2.so.7
  • #2 e_msgport_reply
    from /usr/lib/libedataserver-1.2.so.7
  • #3 start_thread
    from /lib/libpthread.so.0
  • #4 ??
  • #5 ??
  • #6 ??
  • #7 ??
  • #8 ??

Thread 5 (Thread -1278944336 (LWP 4337))

  • #0 ___newselect_nocancel
    from /lib/libc.so.6
  • #1 e_msgport_wait
    from /usr/lib/libedataserver-1.2.so.7
  • #2 e_msgport_reply
    from /usr/lib/libedataserver-1.2.so.7
  • #3 start_thread
    from /lib/libpthread.so.0
  • #4 ??
  • #5 ??
  • #6 ??
  • #7 ??
  • #8 ??

Thread 4 (Thread -1312502864 (LWP 4346))

  • #0 ___newselect_nocancel
    from /lib/libc.so.6
  • #1 e_msgport_wait
    from /usr/lib/libedataserver-1.2.so.7
  • #2 e_msgport_reply
    from /usr/lib/libedataserver-1.2.so.7
  • #3 start_thread
    from /lib/libpthread.so.0
  • #4 ??
  • #5 ??
  • #6 ??
  • #7 ??
  • #8 ??

Thread 3 (Thread -1320891472 (LWP 4393))

  • #0 ___newselect_nocancel
    from /lib/libc.so.6
  • #1 e_msgport_wait
    from /usr/lib/libedataserver-1.2.so.7
  • #2 e_msgport_reply
    from /usr/lib/libedataserver-1.2.so.7
  • #3 start_thread
    from /lib/libpthread.so.0
  • #4 ??
  • #5 ??
  • #6 ??
  • #7 ??
  • #8 ??

Thread 2 (Thread -1329280080 (LWP 4394))

  • #0 ___newselect_nocancel
    from /lib/libc.so.6
  • #1 e_msgport_wait
    from /usr/lib/libedataserver-1.2.so.7
  • #2 e_msgport_reply
    from /usr/lib/libedataserver-1.2.so.7
  • #3 start_thread
    from /lib/libpthread.so.0
  • #4 ??
  • #5 ??
  • #6 ??
  • #7 ??
  • #8 ??




------- Bug created by bug-buddy at 2006-10-08 00:54 -------


Unknown version (null) in product Evolution.  Setting version to "unspecified".

Comment 1 Elijah Newren 2006-10-08 00:54:28 UTC
Thanks for the bug report. Unfortunately, that stack trace is not very useful in determining the cause of the crash. Can you get us one with debugging symbols? Please see http://live.gnome.org/GettingTraces for more information on how to do so.
Comment 2 connexin 2006-10-08 01:04:24 UTC
Created attachment 74259 [details]
better trace

sorry, just realized that myself. attached a better trace.
Comment 3 connexin 2006-10-08 11:31:20 UTC
Created attachment 74271 [details]
backtrace, reproduced with current cvs HEAD

just tested current cvs HEAD. it's the same problem. trace attached
Comment 4 Elijah Newren 2006-10-09 01:29:51 UTC
Thanks for following up!  It looks like a unique stack trace according to the simple-dup-finder.  I'll paste part of the stack trace here so that the simple-dup-finder can catch if anyone else files a duplicate report for us.

  • #0 __waitpid_nocancel
    from /lib/libpthread.so.0
  • #1 gnome_gtk_module_info_get
    from /usr/lib/libgnomeui-2.so.0
  • #2 <signal handler called>
  • #3 pthread_mutex_lock
    from /lib/libpthread.so.0
  • #4 camel_message_info_free
    at camel-folder-summary.c line 2786
  • #5 vee_message_info_free
    at camel-vee-summary.c line 45
  • #6 camel_message_info_free
    at camel-folder-summary.c line 2803
  • #7 camel_folder_summary_clear
    at camel-folder-summary.c line 1158
  • #8 camel_folder_summary_finalize
    at camel-folder-summary.c line 177
  • #9 camel_object_unref
    at camel-object.c line 928
  • #10 camel_folder_finalize
    at camel-folder.c line 192
  • #11 camel_object_unref
    at camel-object.c line 928
  • #12 store_info_unref
    at mail-component.c line 198
  • #13 mail_component_remove_store
    at mail-component.c line 1299
  • #14 mail_component_remove_store_by_uri
    at mail-component.c line 1326
  • #15 mail_account_disable
    at mail-account-disable.c line 71
  • #16 ep_activate
    at e-popup.c line 304

Comment 5 André Klapper 2007-06-21 16:44:22 UTC
same issue as bug 324168

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 324168 ***