Launchpad has imported 19 comments from the remote bug at https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=698532.
If you reply to an imported comment from within Launchpad, your comment will be sent to the remote bug automatically. Read more about Launchpad's inter-bugtracker facilities at https://help.launchpad.net/InterBugTracking. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ On 2011-04-21T07:20:54+00:00 Steven wrote: Description of problem: A "Segmentation fault (core dumped)" is shown when running jfbterm in framebuffer mode. Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): Both jfbterm-0.4.7-22 and jfbterm-0.4.7-24 How reproducible: On i686 version of Fedora 14: [fc14]~>uname -r 2.6.35.12-88.fc14.i686.PAE [fc14]~>rpm -q jfbterm jfbterm-0.4.7-22.fc12.i686 Steps to Reproduce: 1. Boot Fedora 14, and in the boot menu, add the boot parameter "vga=788" 2. As root, run: "chvt 1" 3. Install program "screen" by: "yum install screen" 4. Enter screen by running "screen" 5. jfbterm -e ls Actual results: A "Segmentation fault (core dumped)" will be shown in the end. If jfbterm is run run in screen, it will hang and won't back to command line prompt. I also tried to recompile http://mirrors.kernel.org/fedora/development/15/source/SRPMS/jfbterm-0.4.7-24.fc15.src.rpm on Fedora 14, and run it. Same results. Expected results: Back to command line prompt without segfault. Additional info: Reply at: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/jfbterm/+bug/253163/comments/4 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ On 2011-04-21T07:26:35+00:00 Steven wrote: BTW, the above testing was run on a virtual machine of VMware workstation. I also tried the same steps on a real machine running Fedora 14: CPU: Intel(R) Pentium(R) 4 CPU 2.60GHz VGA card: Intel Corporation 82865G Integrated Graphics Controller (rev 02) This issue is reproducible. Reply at: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/jfbterm/+bug/253163/comments/5 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ On 2011-04-21T07:30:00+00:00 Steven wrote: Oops.. "If jfbterm is run run in screen, it will hang and won't back to command line prompt." -> I mean: "If jfbterm is _not_ run in screen, it will hang and won't back to command line prompt." Reply at: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/jfbterm/+bug/253163/comments/6 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ On 2011-04-26T05:09:25+00:00 Steven wrote: Created attachment 494812 Patch to fix this segfault on exit This patch was created by Thomas Tsai. After this patch was applied, the issue has gone. Reply at: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/jfbterm/+bug/253163/comments/7 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ On 2011-04-26T13:18:34+00:00 Mamoru wrote: The attached patch looks good from a quick glance, however as I cannot reproduce the issue for now I cannot judge if the patch should really be applied or I cannot judge if this issue (if exists) is a bug on jfbterm side. Would you attach a backtrace from gdm for this issue if possible? Reply at: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/jfbterm/+bug/253163/comments/9 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ On 2011-04-26T13:36:10+00:00 Mamoru wrote: (In reply to comment #4) > > Would you attach a backtrace from gdm for this issue if possible? s/gdm/gdb Reply at: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/jfbterm/+bug/253163/comments/10 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ On 2011-04-27T08:22:37+00:00 Thomas wrote: Created attachment 495144 gdb and new patch for tterm_reset_utmp function Hello, I think the segfault is happening with incorrect ut_id value. I tried to fix ut_id, but it works not well especially on Debian for some unknown reason. After some test, I also found some ut_id is empty, so the new patch replace ut_id with ut_line and therefore return code checking is not necessary. Just in caes, we still keep it. I attached segfault log, new patch and fixed log. There is utmp structure value dump from gdb, just compare utmp and utp to confirm the bug issue. BR, Thomas. ---- summary of error log dump ---- (gdb) p utmp $1 = {ut_type = 7, ut_pid = 0, ut_line = '\000' <repeats 31 times>, ut_i d = "\000\000\000", ut_user = '\000' <repeats 31 times>, ut_host = '\000' <repeats 255 times>, ut_exit = { e_termination = 0, e_exit = 0}, ut_session = 0, ut_tv = {tv_sec = 0, tv_usec = 0}, ut_addr_v6 = {0, 0, 0, 0}, __unused = '\000' <repeats 19 times>} (gdb) p *utp Cannot access memory at address 0x0 (gdb) c Continuing. Program received signal SIGSEGV, Segmentation fault. tterm_reset_utmp (p=<value optimized out>) at term.c:309 ---- done ---- --- after new patch ---- (gdb) p utmp $1 = {ut_type = 7, ut_pid = 0, ut_line = "pts/3", '\000' <repeats 26 times>, ut_id = "\000\000\000", ut_user = '\000' <repeats 31 times>, ut_host = '\000' <repeats 255 times>, ut_exit = {e_termination = 0, e_exit = 0}, ut_session = 0, ut_tv = {tv_sec = 0, tv_usec = 0}, ut_addr_v6 = {0, 0, 0, 0}, __unused = '\000' <repeats 19 times>} (gdb) p *utp $2 = {ut_type = 7, ut_pid = 3842, ut_line = "pts/3", '\000' <repeats 26 times>, ut_id = "\000\000\000", ut_user = "root", '\000' <repeats 27 times>, ut_host = '\000' <repeats 255 times>, ut_exit = {e_termination = 0, e_exit = 0}, ut_session = 0, ut_tv = {tv_sec = 1303916197, tv_usec = 0}, ut_addr_v6 = {0, 0, 0, 0}, __unused = '\000' <repeats 19 times>} (gdb) c Continuing. Breakpoint 1, tterm_reset_utmp (p=0x8058c40) at term.c:298 298 { (gdb) c Continuing. Program exited normally. ---- done ---- Reply at: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/jfbterm/+bug/253163/comments/11 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ On 2011-04-28T17:01:18+00:00 Mamoru wrote: Well, now I am trying slowly to understand what tterm_reset_utmp() in term.c is doing, however, $ man getutid says: If ut->ut_type is one of INIT_PROCESS, LOGIN_PROCESS, USER_PROCESS, or DEAD_PROCESS, getutid() will find the first entry whose ut_id field matches ut->ut_id. So changing strncpy(utmp.ut_id, tn, sizeof(utmp.ut_id)); to strncpy(utmp.ut_line, tn, sizeof(utmp.ut_line)); before calling utp = getutid(&utmp); seems wrong to me: As memset is called beforehand, after your patch is applied utmp.ut_id will be "\0" when getutid(&utmp) is called, and utp will be always NULL (perhaps). Reply at: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/jfbterm/+bug/253163/comments/12 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ On 2011-04-29T03:04:11+00:00 Mamoru wrote: Thomas, if possible would you dump the contents of TTerm* p on tterm_reset_utmp when this issue happens (especially p->name)? Reply at: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/jfbterm/+bug/253163/comments/13 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ On 2011-04-29T08:26:03+00:00 Thomas wrote: Hello, The TTerm values dump here: $3 = (TTerm *) 0x8058c40 (gdb) p *p $4 = {ptyfd = 9, ttyfd = 10, name = "/dev/pts/2", '\000' <repeats 53 times>, ,.......(skip) (gdb) p p->name $5 = "/dev/pts/2", '\000' <repeats 53 times> The correct ut_id should be '/2', and 'rindex(...)+4' may get incorrect ut_id. We could still try to back to fix ut_id, or replace getutid(&utmp) with getutline(&utmp). If you need more information, I am happy to dump it for you. Thank You. BR, Thomas. Reply at: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/jfbterm/+bug/253163/comments/14 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ On 2011-04-29T19:20:23+00:00 Mamoru wrote: Okay, thank you for followups. I will submit possible fix for this issue soon. I would appreciate it if you would try the new rpms which may fix this issue. Reply at: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/jfbterm/+bug/253163/comments/15 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ On 2011-04-29T19:22:33+00:00 Fedora wrote: jfbterm-0.4.7-25.fc15 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 15. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/jfbterm-0.4.7-25.fc15 Reply at: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/jfbterm/+bug/253163/comments/16 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ On 2011-04-29T19:23:12+00:00 Fedora wrote: jfbterm-0.4.7-25.fc14 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 14. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/jfbterm-0.4.7-25.fc14 Reply at: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/jfbterm/+bug/253163/comments/17 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ On 2011-04-29T19:23:40+00:00 Fedora wrote: jfbterm-0.4.7-25.fc13 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 13. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/jfbterm-0.4.7-25.fc13 Reply at: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/jfbterm/+bug/253163/comments/18 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ On 2011-04-30T00:27:39+00:00 Steven wrote: I confirmed that this patch fixes the issue. I have downloaded http://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org/packages/jfbterm/0.4.7/25.fc14/i686/jfbterm-0.4.7-25.fc14.i686.rpm and install it on an i686 Fedora 14 machine. After that, no segfault issue when jfbterm exists. Cool! BTW, do you know anyone in the upstream: http://sourceforge.jp/projects/jfbterm/memberlist ? Is that possible all the patches in Fedora can be mergered by the upstream project and have another release (e.g. 0.4.8)? Thanks. Steven. Reply at: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/jfbterm/+bug/253163/comments/19 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ On 2011-04-30T23:20:23+00:00 Fedora wrote: Package jfbterm-0.4.7-25.fc14: * should fix your issue, * was pushed to the Fedora 14 testing repository, * should be available at your local mirror within two days. Update it with: # su -c 'yum update --enablerepo=updates-testing jfbterm-0.4.7-25.fc14' as soon as you are able to. Please go to the following url: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/jfbterm-0.4.7-25.fc14 then log in and leave karma (feedback). Reply at: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/jfbterm/+bug/253163/comments/20 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ On 2011-05-05T05:07:52+00:00 Fedora wrote: jfbterm-0.4.7-25.fc15 has been pushed to the Fedora 15 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. Reply at: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/jfbterm/+bug/253163/comments/21 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ On 2011-05-09T20:56:43+00:00 Fedora wrote: jfbterm-0.4.7-25.fc14 has been pushed to the Fedora 14 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. Reply at: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/jfbterm/+bug/253163/comments/22 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ On 2011-05-09T20:57:20+00:00 Fedora wrote: jfbterm-0.4.7-25.fc13 has been pushed to the Fedora 13 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. Reply at: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/jfbterm/+bug/253163/comments/23 ** Changed in: jfbterm (Fedora) Status: Unknown => Fix Released ** Changed in: jfbterm (Fedora) Importance: Unknown => Medium -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/253163 Title: segfault of jfbterm in intrepid with uvesafb To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/jfbterm/+bug/253163/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list [email protected] https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
