Ubuntu
nautilus package

nautilus crashed with SIGSEGV in g_cclosure_marshal_VOID__VOID()

Bug #517740 reported by lelamal on 2010-02-05

This bug report is a duplicate of: Bug #518891: nautilus crashed with SIGSEGV in g_cclosure_marshal_VOID__VOID(). Edit Remove

This bug affects 1 person

Affects		Status	Importance	Assigned to	Milestone
	nautilus (Ubuntu)	New	Medium	Unassigned

Bug Description

Binary package hint: nautilus

As requested by Sebastien Bacher in Bug #422393, I'm reporting the same bug, again!

ProblemType: Crash
Architecture: i386
CrashCounter: 1
Date: Fri Feb 5 20:03:02 2010
DistroRelease: Ubuntu 9.10
ExecutablePath: /usr/bin/nautilus
InstallationMedia: Ubuntu 9.10 "Karmic Koala" - Release i386 (20091028.5)
Package: nautilus 1:2.28.1-0ubuntu3
ProcCmdline: nautilus
ProcEnviron:
LANGUAGE=en_GB.UTF-8
LANG=en_GB.UTF-8
SHELL=/bin/bash
ProcVersionSignature: Ubuntu 2.6.31-17.54-generic
SegvAnalysis:
Segfault happened at: 0x811ac41: mov 0xc(%eax),%edx
PC (0x0811ac41) ok
source "0xc(%eax)" (0x0000000c) not located in a known VMA region (needed readable region)!
destination "%edx" ok
SegvReason: reading NULL VMA
Signal: 11
SourcePackage: nautilus
StacktraceTop:
?? ()
?? ()
?? ()
g_cclosure_marshal_VOID__VOID ()
g_closure_invoke () from /usr/lib/libgobject-2.0.so.0
Title: nautilus crashed with SIGSEGV in g_cclosure_marshal_VOID__VOID()
Uname: Linux 2.6.31-17-generic i686
UserGroups: adm admin cdrom dialout lpadmin plugdev sambashare

Tags:

Revision history for this message

lelamal (lelamal-deactivatedaccount) wrote on 2010-02-05:

Dependencies.txt Edit (4.6 KiB, text/plain; charset="utf-8")
Disassembly.txt Edit (474 bytes, text/plain; charset="utf-8")
ProcMaps.txt Edit (55.3 KiB, text/plain; charset="utf-8")
ProcStatus.txt Edit (763 bytes, text/plain; charset="utf-8")
Registers.txt Edit (442 bytes, text/plain; charset="utf-8")
Stacktrace.txt Edit (1.6 KiB, text/plain; charset="utf-8")
ThreadStacktrace.txt Edit (3.8 KiB, text/plain; charset="utf-8")
XsessionErrors.txt Edit (60.0 KiB, text/plain; charset="utf-8")
usr_lib_nautilus.txt Edit (297 bytes, text/plain; charset="utf-8")

visibility:

private → public

Pedro Villavicencio (pedro) on 2010-02-05

Changed in nautilus (Ubuntu):
importance:	Undecided → Medium

Revision history for this message

Sense Egbert Hofstede (sense) wrote on 2010-02-06:

Thank you for taking the time to report this bug. However, it is a duplicate of bug #515495. Even though Sebastien requested you to report a new bug instead of reopening the old bug, you don't have to create three. One is enough.

Revision history for this message

lelamal (lelamal-deactivatedaccount) wrote on 2010-02-06:

> Thank you for taking the time to report this bug.
You're welcome.

> However, it is a duplicate of bug #515495.
And how would I know? If it was up to me to decide, I would have followed Apport, and considered bug #515495 itself to be a duplicate of Bug #422393. However, I have been told that was not the case for the latter was fixed, so I followed his advice.

> Even though Sebastien requested you to report
> a new bug instead of reopening the old bug, you don't have to create
> three. One is enough.
One may be enough now, but not before. Again: how would I know when could that have been enough? I had been instructed to use Apport to open a new bug for it might have been a different or new issue... but then I thought that Apport is the same tool whose precision I had been instructed to question and ignore, so I believed it safer to report each new instance of this particular bug and wait for retraicing. In the end, I am an average user, while Sebastien is the expert, and I would never question his word. Anyway, now that I have an official word on the matter, I know it is useless to keep reporting this bug.