[Fedora-i18n-bugs] [Bug 1689037] anaconda sometimes crashes with a signal 11 quite early in install process
by bugzilla@redhat.com
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1689037
--- Comment #27 from Adam Williamson <awilliam(a)redhat.com> ---
Yeah, it's the same code, which is why I got to thinking the *things it's
working with* may be different, i.e. scoping. But it's only an idea.
So, I tried doing a build of 2.5.3 with a patch that basically 'reverts' e4f27f
by moving the struct definition back inline...and it hits the bug. So now I'm
just entirely baffled, and I've spent the whole day on this. Fun!
I'm going to re-do the tests of bee93e26 and e4f27f by hand just in case my
test script somehow screwed up...
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
4 years, 10 months
[Fedora-i18n-bugs] [Bug 1689037] anaconda sometimes crashes with a signal 11 quite early in install process
by bugzilla@redhat.com
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1689037
--- Comment #25 from Adam Williamson <awilliam(a)redhat.com> ---
e640f3a6b16f41cee5f7868ec738fda01244e96a crashes the same way as
4035158de46ce373b7521daf61c5b6df83312968 .
So...my bisection hit a somewhat surprising result. It pretty strongly says
that this commit is the cause:
https://github.com/harfbuzz/harfbuzz/commit/e4f27f368f8f0509fa47f6a28f398...
We have a definite fail with that commit:
https://openqa.stg.fedoraproject.org/tests/567465
With the previous commit, bee93e269711a3eda4e7d762b730522564fe6e87 , I have
tried the test 120 times now - because I was so surprised at this result - and
it has not failed once. So I'm really pretty sure this is it.
On the face of it, all this does is move a struct definition out from being
inline in _hb_ot_shape_fallback_kern , if I'm reading it right. There's no
obvious functional change at all.
However, having stared at it until I went cross-eyed...and bearing in mind that
my C is pretty shaky and I am sort of applying knowledge from Python scoping
here, which for all I know is completely different...is it possible that the
difference could be to do with 'font'? 'font' is the name assigned to one of
the arguments for `_hb_ot_shape_fallback_kern`, and then - again, based on my
very shaky C knowledge - in the old code, the inline struct definition did some
stuff with 'font'. Which...I dunno C scoping, but wouldn't that be the 'font'
that was passed in as an argument? Whereas once the struct definition is taken
out of line, it wouldn't have that 'font' in scope any more?
Again, I may be way off here, that's just all I could think of based on my
limited knowledge. If this really doesn't seem to make any sense, I can try the
bisection *again*, but at this point the result seems pretty solid.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
4 years, 10 months
[Fedora-i18n-bugs] [Bug 1689037] anaconda sometimes crashes with a signal 11 quite early in install process
by bugzilla@redhat.com
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1689037
--- Comment #23 from Adam Williamson <awilliam(a)redhat.com> ---
FWIW my current bisect does not have that commit in its range. At present the
range is bee93e269711a3eda4e7d762b730522564fe6e87 to
7003b601afd02b0ba7e839510a7d0b886da09aaa . It's really tricky to have
confidence in the results as the bug doesn't happen *super* often - I'm
currently running 40 tests on each revision, and sometimes for a 'bad' revision
I only get 1 failure. So it's a bit tricky. I'm 100% confident in the 'bad'
results, the 'good' results are a bit questionable, I might have to go up even
further to 80. But that's what I have ATM.
At least it seems pretty certain the bad commit is before
7003b601afd02b0ba7e839510a7d0b886da09aaa .
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
4 years, 10 months