GNOME Bugzilla – Bug 599459
segmentation fault in week view of calendar
Last modified: 2010-05-13 21:29:39 UTC
Had just selected new icons of some categories and clicked around in the week view. (evolution:12619): e-data-server-DEBUG: Saving categories to "/home/tom/.evolution/categories.xml" [Thread 0xb1effb90 (LWP 13700) exited] [Thread 0xb076db90 (LWP 13698) exited] [New Thread 0xb32b3b90 (LWP 13703)] [Thread 0xb32b3b90 (LWP 13703) exited] [New Thread 0xb32b3b90 (LWP 13711)] [Thread 0xb109cb90 (LWP 13699) exited] [New Thread 0xb109cb90 (LWP 13714)] [Thread 0xb109cb90 (LWP 13714) exited] [New Thread 0xb109cb90 (LWP 13718)] [Thread 0xb32b3b90 (LWP 13711) exited] [New Thread 0xb32b3b90 (LWP 13720)] [Thread 0xb109cb90 (LWP 13718) exited] [New Thread 0xb109cb90 (LWP 13722)] [Thread 0xb32b3b90 (LWP 13720) exited] [New Thread 0xb32b3b90 (LWP 13725)] [Thread 0xb32b3b90 (LWP 13725) exited] [New Thread 0xb32b3b90 (LWP 13733)] [Thread 0xb109cb90 (LWP 13722) exited] [New Thread 0xb109cb90 (LWP 13735)] [New Thread 0xb076db90 (LWP 13737)] [Thread 0xb32b3b90 (LWP 13733) exited] [Thread 0xb076db90 (LWP 13737) exited] [New Thread 0xb076db90 (LWP 13742)] [Thread 0xb109cb90 (LWP 13735) exited] [New Thread 0xb109cb90 (LWP 13747)] [New Thread 0xb32b3b90 (LWP 13748)] [Thread 0xb32b3b90 (LWP 13748) exited] [New Thread 0xb32b3b90 (LWP 13749)] [Thread 0xb32b3b90 (LWP 13749) exited] [New Thread 0xb32b3b90 (LWP 13750)] [Thread 0xb32b3b90 (LWP 13750) exited] [New Thread 0xb32b3b90 (LWP 13751)] [Thread 0xb32b3b90 (LWP 13751) exited] calendar-gui-Message: Check if default client matches (1225652525.7628.0@linux1 1218581538.8284.16@linux1) [New Thread 0xb32b3b90 (LWP 13752)] calendar-gui-Message: Check if default client matches (1225652525.7628.0@linux1 1219360309.6985.0@linux1) [Thread 0xb32b3b90 (LWP 13752) exited] [New Thread 0xb32b3b90 (LWP 13753)] [New Thread 0xb1effb90 (LWP 13754)] calendar-gui-Message: Check if default client matches (1225652525.7628.0@linux1 1225401795.7701.0@linux1) [Thread 0xb1effb90 (LWP 13754) exited] [New Thread 0xb1effb90 (LWP 13755)] calendar-gui-Message: Check if default client matches (1225652525.7628.0@linux1 1225652525.7628.0@linux1) [Thread 0xb1effb90 (LWP 13755) exited] [Thread 0xb109cb90 (LWP 13747) exited] [Thread 0xb32b3b90 (LWP 13753) exited] [New Thread 0xb32b3b90 (LWP 13756)] [Thread 0xb32b3b90 (LWP 13756) exited] [New Thread 0xb32b3b90 (LWP 13764)] [Thread 0xb076db90 (LWP 13742) exited] [New Thread 0xb076db90 (LWP 13766)] [Thread 0xb076db90 (LWP 13766) exited] [New Thread 0xb076db90 (LWP 13771)] [Thread 0xb076db90 (LWP 13771) exited] [New Thread 0xb076db90 (LWP 13777)] [Thread 0xb076db90 (LWP 13777) exited] [New Thread 0xb076db90 (LWP 13779)] [New Thread 0xb109cb90 (LWP 13781)] Program received signal SIGSEGV, Segmentation fault.
+ Trace 218532
Thread 3057002320 (LWP 12619)
Thread 1 (Thread 0xb6362750 (LWP 12619))
Created attachment 146147 [details] [review] preliminary crutch rather than a patch checks, if array index is out of bounds
Comment on attachment 146147 [details] [review] preliminary crutch rather than a patch How many categories have you selected and any idea on the number of events the day had? If you could give more details that would help us reproduce the issue, it would be help us put the right fix. Am not able to reproduce this issue atm.
(In reply to comment #2) > (From update of attachment 146147 [details] [review]) > How many categories have you selected and any idea on the number of events the > day had? If you could give more details that would help us reproduce the issue, > it would be help us put the right fix. Am not able to reproduce this issue atm. Sorry, just reverted to the old state, but could not reproduce it. I have to add that I cannot remember the exact scenario. Sorry about that. Anyway, I find it not to be too bad an idea to check for the length of an array before accessing it. thomas
Same downstream bug report in 2.28.0: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=549672
I dealt with this within patch for bug #607257, thus I'm marking this as a duplicate of the newer. *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 607257 ***