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 130475 - FC1 smb:/// crash
FC1 smb:/// crash
Status: RESOLVED DUPLICATE of bug 107741
Product: nautilus
Classification: Core
Component: general
unspecified
Other other
: Normal normal
: ---
Assigned To: Nautilus Maintainers
Nautilus Maintainers
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
 
Reported: 2004-01-03 23:34 UTC by pjrother
Modified: 2004-12-22 21:47 UTC
See Also:
GNOME target: ---
GNOME version: ---



Description pjrother 2004-01-03 23:35:45 UTC
Distribution: Fedora Core release 1 (Yarrow)
Package: nautilus
Severity: major
Version: GNOME2.4.0 unspecified
Gnome-Distributor: GNOME.Org
Synopsis: smb:/// crash
Bugzilla-Product: nautilus
Bugzilla-Component: general
Bugzilla-Version: unspecified
BugBuddy-GnomeVersion: 2.0 (2.4.0.1)
Description:
Description of the crash:
When browsing smb:/// after idle for more than 5-10 minutes, nautilus
decides to crash. In my instance, I started smb:/// about 30 minutes ago
and have now come back to it, only to discover that when I clicked on
workgroup (the name of my workgroup) it crashed. This is not the first
time this has happened.

Steps to reproduce the crash:
1. Go to redhat menu, click on network servers.
2. Leave the window up for a little bit (5-10 minutes if not more)
3. Come back to the window and attempt to browse the network.

Expected Results:
You'd expect to be able to explore the network!

How often does this happen?
This has happened to me so far everytime I have left the window open for
that certain amount of time.

Additional Information:



Debugging Information:

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

(no debugging symbols found)...Using host libthread_db library
"/lib/tls/libthread_db.so.1".
(no debugging symbols found)...
(no debugging symbols found)...(no debugging symbols found)...
(no debugging symbols found)...(no debugging symbols found)...
(no debugging symbols found)...(no debugging symbols found)...
(no debugging symbols found)...(no debugging symbols found)...
(no debugging symbols found)...(no debugging symbols found)...
(no debugging symbols found)...(no debugging symbols found)...
(no debugging symbols found)...(no debugging symbols found)...
(no debugging symbols found)...(no debugging symbols found)...
(no debugging symbols found)...(no debugging symbols found)...
(no debugging symbols found)...[Thread debugging using libthread_db
enabled]
[New Thread -1084778624 (LWP 4031)]
[New Thread -1091187792 (LWP 9037)]
[New Thread -1090921552 (LWP 9036)]
[New Thread -1090655312 (LWP 9035)]
[New Thread -1088517200 (LWP 4093)]
[New Thread -1088250960 (LWP 4092)]
[New Thread -1087984720 (LWP 4091)]
[New Thread -1087173712 (LWP 4077)]
[New Thread -1086907472 (LWP 4076)]
(no debugging symbols found)...
(no debugging symbols found)...(no debugging symbols found)...
(no debugging symbols found)...(no debugging symbols found)...
(no debugging symbols found)...(no debugging symbols found)...
(no debugging symbols found)...(no debugging symbols found)...
(no debugging symbols found)...(no debugging symbols found)...
(no debugging symbols found)...(no debugging symbols found)...
(no debugging symbols found)...(no debugging symbols found)...
(no debugging symbols found)...(no debugging symbols found)...
(no debugging symbols found)...(no debugging symbols found)...
(no debugging symbols found)...(no debugging symbols found)...
(no debugging symbols found)...(no debugging symbols found)...
(no debugging symbols found)...(no debugging symbols found)...
(no debugging symbols found)...(no debugging symbols found)...
(no debugging symbols found)...(no debugging symbols found)...
(no debugging symbols found)...(no debugging symbols found)...
(no debugging symbols found)...(no debugging symbols found)...
(no debugging symbols found)...(no debugging symbols found)...
(no debugging symbols found)...(no debugging symbols found)...
(no debugging symbols found)...(no debugging symbols found)...
(no debugging symbols found)...(no debugging symbols found)...
(no debugging symbols found)...(no debugging symbols found)...
(no debugging symbols found)...(no debugging symbols found)...
(no debugging symbols found)...(no debugging symbols found)...
(no debugging symbols found)...(no debugging symbols found)...
(no debugging symbols found)...(no debugging symbols found)...
(no debugging symbols found)...(no debugging symbols found)...
(no debugging symbols found)...(no debugging symbols found)...
(no debugging symbols found)...(no debugging symbols found)...
(no debugging symbols found)...(no debugging symbols found)...
(no debugging symbols found)...(no debugging symbols found)...
(no debugging symbols found)...(no debugging symbols found)...
(no debugging symbols found)...(no debugging symbols found)...
(no debugging symbols found)...(no debugging symbols found)...
(no debugging symbols found)...(no debugging symbols found)...
(no debugging symbols found)...(no debugging symbols found)...
(no debugging symbols found)...(no debugging symbols found)...
(no debugging symbols found)...(no debugging symbols found)...
(no debugging symbols found)...(no debugging symbols found)...
(no debugging symbols found)...(no debugging symbols found)...
(no debugging symbols found)...0x007cec32 in _dl_sysinfo_int80 ()
   from /lib/ld-linux.so.2

Thread 2 (Thread -1091187792 (LWP 9037))

  • #0 _dl_sysinfo_int80
    from /lib/ld-linux.so.2
  • #1 __waitpid_nocancel
    from /lib/tls/libpthread.so.0
  • #2 libgnomeui_module_info_get
    from /usr/lib/libgnomeui-2.so.0
  • #3 <signal handler called>
  • #4 ??
    from /usr/lib/gnome-vfs-2.0/modules/libsmb.so
  • #5 ??
  • #6 ??
    from /usr/lib/gnome-vfs-2.0/modules/libsmb.so
  • #7 ??
  • #8 ??
    from /usr/lib/gnome-vfs-2.0/modules/libsmb.so
  • #9 ??
    from /usr/lib/gnome-vfs-2.0/modules/libsmb.so
  • #10 ??
  • #11 ??
  • #12 ??
    from /usr/lib/gnome-vfs-2.0/modules/libsmb.so
  • #13 ??
  • #14 ??
  • #15 ??
  • #16 ??
    from /usr/lib/gnome-vfs-2.0/modules/libsmb.so
  • #17 ??
  • #18 ??
    from /usr/lib/gnome-vfs-2.0/modules/libsmb.so
  • #19 ??
  • #20 ??
    from /usr/lib/gnome-vfs-2.0/modules/libsmb.so
  • #21 ??
  • #22 ??
  • #23 ??
  • #24 get_file_type
    from /usr/lib/gnome-vfs-2.0/modules/libsmb.so
  • #0 _dl_sysinfo_int80
    from /lib/ld-linux.so.2




------- Bug moved to this database by unknown@bugzilla.gnome.org 2004-01-03 18:35 -------

The original reporter (pjrother@cinci.rr.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 Matthew Gatto 2004-01-04 21:28:04 UTC
Thanks for the bug report. Unfortunately, that stack trace is not very
useful in determining the cause of the crash. Please make sure that
the package was compiled with debugging symbols and see
http://bugzilla.gnome.org/getting-traces.cgi for more information
about useful stack traces.

The packages you'll need to install with debugging symbols are at
least gnome-vfs, gnome-vfs-extras, and nautilus.
Comment 2 Matthew Gatto 2004-02-13 00:42:36 UTC
pjrother@cinci.rr.com: what version of gnome-vfs-extras are you using?
Comment 3 Matthew Gatto 2004-02-13 00:49:51 UTC
this command should tell you:
$ rpm -q gnome-vfs2-extras
Comment 4 Matthew Gatto 2004-02-18 07:48:59 UTC
The reporter (pjrother@cinci.rr.com) emailed me and said he is using
gnome-vfs2-extras-0.99.10-3.1 which would imply this is a dup of bug
107741 which was fixed in gnome-vfs2-extras-0.99.11.

pjrother@cinci.rr.com: Does upgrading to gnome-vfs2-extras-0.99.11 (or
later) solve the problem?
Comment 5 pjrother 2004-03-06 23:17:12 UTC
Yes, confirmed: the upgrade to gnome-vfs2-extras-0.99.10-3.1 does
indeed fix this bug. Thank you for all of your assistance.
Comment 6 Matthew Gatto 2004-03-07 07:37:16 UTC
pjrother@cinci.rr.com: no problem, thanks for following up. luis: do
we want to go through and mark all of the similar FC1 bugs as dups of
bug 107741?
Comment 7 Matthew Gatto 2004-03-07 07:38:57 UTC

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 107741 ***