January 2017 - openSUSE Bugs - openSUSE Mailing Lists

[Bug 967260] emacs 24.3 tramp session crashes with backtrace
by bugzilla_noreply＠novell.com 05 Jan '17

05 Jan '17

http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=967260 Swamp Workflow Management <swamp(a)suse.de> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Whiteboard|ibs:running:3898:moderate |obs:running:6162:moderate |obs:running:6162:moderate | -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

1 0

[Bug 967260] emacs 24.3 tramp session crashes with backtrace
by bugzilla_noreply＠novell.com 05 Jan '17

05 Jan '17

http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=967260 Swamp Workflow Management <swamp(a)suse.de> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Whiteboard|ibs:running:3898:moderate |ibs:running:3898:moderate | |obs:running:6162:moderate -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

1 0

[Bug 1017970] acpica package is not built for aarch64
by bugzilla_noreply＠novell.com 05 Jan '17

05 Jan '17

http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1017970 http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1017970#c3 --- Comment #3 from Thomas Renninger <trenn(a)suse.com> --- > I think you misunderstand my point. Hmm, maybe the other way around. Adding acpica to an already existing aarch64 leap project would certainly need modifying the package list as well. A new package showing up in a maintenance update repo is rare, probably needs leap release manager approval and work. Not worth as this is everything but critical. > The people who need it on x86 are the same set of people who will need it on > aarch64. No, because people who need acpica typically work on BIOS level, close to HW. I often debug x86 acpi issues, but fortunately never had the pleasure to look at aarch64 issues, other than reviewing code. > > You can build it on your own in our build service. > Clearly that's not the point Yes it is. There is an easy way out for the handful aarch64 acpi developers. Simply clone the original project into your open build service home project and enable build (and publish flag) for aarch64. I did that now and it took me 3x longer to write this than to do 2 clicks in our build service. You can now add this repo: zypper ar http://download.opensuse.org/repositories/home:/trenn:/branches:/hardware/o… if zypper is what you need to work with... PS: Please read in a bit and try out things mentioned, before answering or complaining next time. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

1 0

[Bug 1018198] devel:languages:php: Fails when getrandom syscall unavailable
by bugzilla_noreply＠novell.com 05 Jan '17

05 Jan '17

http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1018198 http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1018198#c5 Cristian Rodríguez <crrodriguez(a)opensuse.org> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |crrodriguez(a)opensuse.org --- Comment #5 from Cristian Rodríguez <crrodriguez(a)opensuse.org> --- (In reply to Petr Gajdos from comment #4) > Ok, so false accusation? I will need to look at it then. No.. your are correct.. it is this patch that makes the code actually use getrandom as intended, unfortunately the user is running a kernel that does not support it..but PHP is built against kernel headers that do provide the syscall definition. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

1 0

[Bug 1017925] LibreOffice demands libobdc.so.1 but unixOBDC only provids libobdc.so.2
by bugzilla_noreply＠novell.com 05 Jan '17

05 Jan '17

http://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1017925 http://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1017925#c3 --- Comment #3 from Tomáš Chvátal <tchvatal(a)suse.com> --- (In reply to Adam Majer from comment #2) > Michael is away so I'll take a quick look. Looks like LibreOffice is trying > to open wrong file. Soname for unixODBC is set correctly in libodbc.so.2 > > SONAME libodbc.so.2 > > but libreoffice seems to have these hardcoded??? > > openSUSE:Leap:42.1/libreoffice/libreoffice-5.0.2.2/dbaccess> grep > libodbc.so. * -r > source/ui/dlg/odbcconfig.cxx:#define ODBC_LIBRARY_1 "libodbc.so.1" > source/ui/dlg/odbcconfig.cxx:#define ODBC_LIBRARY "libodbc.so" > > Quickly looking at libreoffice sources tell me that it will actually try to > load the libodbc.so *first* then fallback to the hardcoded soname. > > Workaround is to have unixODBC-devel package installed. But haven't tested. Yep it dlopens it for the fun of it. I will update the code... -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

1 0

[Bug 940212] New: kernel BUG at ../fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c:1833
by bugzilla_noreply＠novell.com 05 Jan '17

05 Jan '17

http://bugzilla.opensuse.org/show_bug.cgi?id=940212 Bug ID: 940212 Summary: kernel BUG at ../fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c:1833 Classification: openSUSE Product: openSUSE Factory Version: 201505* Hardware: Other OS: Other Status: NEW Severity: Normal Priority: P5 - None Component: Kernel Assignee: kernel-maintainers(a)forge.provo.novell.com Reporter: mpluskal(a)suse.com QA Contact: qa-bugs(a)suse.de Found By: --- Blocker: --- Created attachment 642672 --> http://bugzilla.opensuse.org/attachment.cgi?id=642672&action=edit dmesg i have noticed that my testing system, with multi device btrs has recently crashed: [ 1314.003173] ------------[ cut here ]------------ [ 1314.007817] kernel BUG at ../fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c:1833! [ 1314.013242] invalid opcode: 0000 [#1] PREEMPT SMP [ 1314.018080] Modules linked in: fuse ebtable_filter ebtables ip6table_filter ip6_tables iptable_filter ip_tables x_tables des3_ede_x86_64 des_generic rpcsec_gss_krb5 nfsv4 dns_resolver nfs lockd grace fscache iscsi_ibft iscsi_boot_sysfs af_packet hwmon_vid auth_rpcgss cdc_subset usbnet snd_hda_codec_realtek snd_hda_codec_hdmi snd_hda_codec_generic snd_hda_intel snd_hda_codec dm_mod snd_hda_core snd_hwdep snd_pcm snd_timer 8250_fintek edac_core edac_mce_amd acpi_cpufreq sp5100_tco pcspkr ppdev snd parport_pc parport shpchp i2c_piix4 k10temp soundcore asus_atk0110 wmi kvm_amd kvm button processor sunrpc ata_generic btrfs xor raid1 raid0 raid6_pq md_mod serio_raw amdkfd amd_iommu_v2 pata_atiixp ohci_pci firewire_ohci sr_mod cdrom firewire_core radeon crc_itu_t r8169 mii i2c_algo_bit drm_kms_helper ttm [ 1314.089543] drm sg [ 1314.090428] CPU: 2 PID: 89 Comm: kworker/u12:7 Not tainted 4.2.0-rc3-2.g3b6a8b8-desktop #1 [ 1314.098733] Hardware name: System manufacturer System Product Name/M4A79 Deluxe, BIOS 4101 04/13/2011 [ 1314.108202] Workqueue: btrfs-extent-refs btrfs_extent_refs_helper [btrfs] [ 1314.115081] task: ffff880227472100 ti: ffff8800ca788000 task.ti: ffff8800ca788000 [ 1314.122600] RIP: 0010:[<ffffffffa0378da6>] [<ffffffffa0378da6>] insert_inline_extent_backref+0xc6/0xd0 [btrfs] [ 1314.132763] RSP: 0018:ffff8800ca78bac8 EFLAGS: 00010293 [ 1314.138099] RAX: 0000000000000000 RBX: 0000000000000000 RCX: 0000000000000001 [ 1314.145270] RDX: ffff880000000000 RSI: 0000000000000001 RDI: 0000000000000000 [ 1314.152442] RBP: ffff8800ca78bb48 R08: 0000000000004000 R09: ffff8800ca78b9c8 [ 1314.159525] R10: 0000000000000000 R11: 0000000000000002 R12: ffff8802242a5000 [ 1314.166771] R13: 0000000000000000 R14: 0000000000000000 R15: ffff8802102c1c80 [ 1314.173854] FS: 00007f9c2c373700(0000) GS:ffff88022fc80000(0000) knlGS:0000000000000000 [ 1314.181972] CS: 0010 DS: 0000 ES: 0000 CR0: 000000008005003b [ 1314.187819] CR2: 00007f9c2c30e000 CR3: 0000000001c0c000 CR4: 00000000000006e0 [ 1314.194991] Stack: [ 1314.197011] 0000000000000000 0000000000000102 0000000000000000 0000000000000000 [ 1314.204487] 0000001100000001 ffffffff811c1af9 ffff8800ca78bb28 ffffffffa036c5da [ 1314.211960] ffff8801a041ae78 0000000000002e93 ffff8801a041ae78 ffff880224bce800 [ 1314.219423] ffff8801a041ae78 ffff8802102c1c80 0000000000000102 ffff8800cfacc000 [ 1314.226889] ffff8800ca78bbf8 ffffffffa0379238 0000000000000102 0000000000000000 [ 1314.234363] 0000000000000000 0000000000000001 0000000000000000 ffff8800a08bde78 [ 1314.241841] ffff8800ca78bbf8 0000000000004000 0000000000000000 000000110f3c0000 [ 1314.249292] ffff8800ca78bbc8 ffffffffa03e151a ffff8800ca78bbf8 ffffffffa03e2075 [ 1314.256766] Call Trace: [ 1314.259228] [<ffffffff811c1af9>] ? kmem_cache_alloc+0x199/0x1b0 [ 1314.265273] [<ffffffffa036c5da>] ? btrfs_alloc_path+0x1a/0x20 [btrfs] [ 1314.271840] [<ffffffffa0379238>] __btrfs_inc_extent_ref.isra.52+0x98/0x250 [btrfs] [ 1314.279546] [<ffffffffa03e151a>] ? find_ref_head+0x5a/0x80 [btrfs] [ 1314.285854] [<ffffffffa03e2075>] ? btrfs_delayed_ref_lock+0x35/0x210 [btrfs] [ 1314.292946] [<ffffffffa03806dd>] __btrfs_run_delayed_refs+0xc9d/0x10c0 [btrfs] [ 1314.300359] [<ffffffff8108a718>] ? ttwu_stat+0x98/0x100 [ 1314.305619] [<ffffffffa0394afe>] ? join_transaction.isra.15+0x10e/0x410 [btrfs] [ 1314.313124] [<ffffffffa0384c43>] btrfs_run_delayed_refs.part.75+0x73/0x260 [btrfs] [ 1314.320827] [<ffffffffa0384ece>] delayed_ref_async_start+0x7e/0x90 [btrfs] [ 1314.327747] [<ffffffffa03c62da>] btrfs_scrubparity_helper+0xca/0x300 [btrfs] [ 1314.334993] [<ffffffffa03c654e>] btrfs_extent_refs_helper+0xe/0x10 [btrfs] [ 1314.341991] [<ffffffff8107f029>] process_one_work+0x159/0x470 [ 1314.347765] [<ffffffff8107f388>] worker_thread+0x48/0x4a0 [ 1314.353351] [<ffffffff8107f340>] ? process_one_work+0x470/0x470 [ 1314.359387] [<ffffffff81085079>] kthread+0xc9/0xe0 [ 1314.364202] [<ffffffff81084fb0>] ? kthread_worker_fn+0x170/0x170 [ 1314.370400] [<ffffffff816a581f>] ret_from_fork+0x3f/0x70 [ 1314.375828] [<ffffffff81084fb0>] ? kthread_worker_fn+0x170/0x170 [ 1314.381863] Code: 45 10 49 89 d9 48 8b 55 c8 4c 89 34 24 4c 89 e9 4c 89 fe 4c 89 e7 48 89 44 24 10 8b 45 28 89 44 24 08 e8 3e d7 ff ff 31 c0 eb bb <0f> 0b 0f 1f 84 00 00 00 00 00 0f 1f 44 00 00 55 be 01 00 00 00 [ 1314.401569] RIP [<ffffffffa0378da6>] insert_inline_extent_backref+0xc6/0xd0 [btrfs] [ 1314.409349] RSP <ffff8800ca78bac8> -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

1 2

[Bug 1008946] Can't boot newest kernel, not the same as bug 1006417
by bugzilla_noreply＠novell.com 05 Jan '17

05 Jan '17

http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1008946 http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1008946#c14 Borislav Petkov <bpetkov(a)suse.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |mfleming(a)suse.com Flags|needinfo?(priceninetytwo@gm |needinfo?(mfleming(a)suse.com |ail.com) |) --- Comment #14 from Borislav Petkov <bpetkov(a)suse.com> --- (In reply to Brian Price from comment #13) > I just installed an ssd in my laptop and had to go with Arch Linux because I > couldn't install the newest version of opensuse. But in the process of > installing, I learned something that could be useful to you. First of all, > neither the newest version of arch or opensuse could boot in uefi mode. Both > of the iso's worked fine in CSM mode though. Also, opensuse coughed up an > error message on the failed boots saying /efi/boot/x86-84-efi/linux.mod and > /efi/boot/x86-84-efi/ls.mod weren't found. So I can no longer boot linux in > general unless it's in csm mode. Hey Matt, does the above ring any bells? Thanks. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

1 0

[Bug 907459] btrfs: deadlock? when running trinity
by bugzilla_noreply＠novell.com 05 Jan '17

05 Jan '17

http://bugzilla.opensuse.org/show_bug.cgi?id=907459 http://bugzilla.opensuse.org/show_bug.cgi?id=907459#c3 Libor Pechacek <lpechacek(a)suse.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |lpechacek(a)suse.com --- Comment #3 from Libor Pechacek <lpechacek(a)suse.com> --- Still current? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

1 0

[Bug 1008487] lircd segfaults
by bugzilla_noreply＠novell.com 05 Jan '17

05 Jan '17

http://bugzilla.opensuse.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1008487 http://bugzilla.opensuse.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1008487#c7 --- Comment #7 from Denisart Benjamin <p.drouand(a)gmail.com> --- This bug has been fixed in Factory. Unfortunately, I'm not comfortable with the Maintenance project process. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

1 0

[Bug 1017925] LibreOffice demands libobdc.so.1 but unixOBDC only provids libobdc.so.2
by bugzilla_noreply＠novell.com 05 Jan '17

05 Jan '17

http://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1017925 http://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1017925#c2 Adam Majer <amajer(a)suse.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |amajer(a)suse.com --- Comment #2 from Adam Majer <amajer(a)suse.com> --- Michael is away so I'll take a quick look. Looks like LibreOffice is trying to open wrong file. Soname for unixODBC is set correctly in libodbc.so.2 SONAME libodbc.so.2 but libreoffice seems to have these hardcoded??? openSUSE:Leap:42.1/libreoffice/libreoffice-5.0.2.2/dbaccess> grep libodbc.so. * -r source/ui/dlg/odbcconfig.cxx:#define ODBC_LIBRARY_1 "libodbc.so.1" source/ui/dlg/odbcconfig.cxx:#define ODBC_LIBRARY "libodbc.so" Quickly looking at libreoffice sources tell me that it will actually try to load the libodbc.so *first* then fallback to the hardcoded soname. Workaround is to have unixODBC-devel package installed. But haven't tested. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

1 0