Summary: | xorg-server 1.10.0.902 sigbuses in Xi/exevents.c:UpdateDeviceState() while accessing v->axisVal[0] for second time | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | xorg | Reporter: | Petr Pisar <petr.pisar> |
Component: | Server/General | Assignee: | Peter Hutterer <peter.hutterer> |
Status: | RESOLVED FIXED | QA Contact: | Xorg Project Team <xorg-team> |
Severity: | normal | ||
Priority: | medium | CC: | jeremyhu, peter.hutterer |
Version: | unspecified | ||
Hardware: | Other | ||
OS: | Linux (All) | ||
Whiteboard: | |||
i915 platform: | i915 features: | ||
Bug Depends on: | |||
Bug Blocks: | 31018 |
Description
Petr Pisar
2011-04-10 14:12:42 UTC
Petr, you said "since 1.10.0.901" ... can you please verify that 1.10.0 does not have this behavior? exevents.c did not change between 1.10.0 and 1.10.0.901 ... The only changes between 1.10.0 and 1.10.0.901 which might be related are these two: http://cgit.freedesktop.org/xorg/xserver/commit/?h=server-1.10-branch&id=09f6d85b5bb49406f015ec667bb6efb3e710ced2 http://cgit.freedesktop.org/xorg/xserver/commit/?h=server-1.10-branch&id=a96fd08b406b9955ff0d5c02f4a50f4fb2acf40e While certainly not the cause of the problem, it's possible that it just worked before by luck, and fixing those two issues rearranged memory to poke n32 in a bad place. Petr, can you please try reverting those to changes to see if your problem goes away? (In reply to comment #1) > Petr, you said "since 1.10.0.901" ... can you please verify that 1.10.0 does > not have this behavior? exevents.c did not change between 1.10.0 and > 1.10.0.901 ... commit 678f5396c91b3d0c7572ed579b0a4fb62b2b4655 Refs: xorg-server-1.9.99.903-5-g678f539 fixed this problem during init but DeepCopyDeviceClasses still has the same issue when the valuator numbers differ. I'll get a fix out, but this bug should be visible with any 1.10 version Ok, based on this bugs existence in 1.10.0, it will not block 1.10.1. However, if a fix is available by Wednesday with minimal code change, I will merge it in to allow testing before final release on Friday. If the change is too large or otherwise risky, I'll bring it in after 1.10.0. The last sentence should've ended with "after 1.10.1." I said since because that for first version I observed the problem. Version I used before was 1.9.5. The patch by Peter works for me. Ok, since this issue is present in 1.10.0, it does not meet the criteria to merge into 1.10.1 at this point. The patch is scheduled to be pulled into 1.10 during the 1.10.2 cycle after a sufficient test period on master. This was fixed in 1.10.2 RC1 |
Use of freedesktop.org services, including Bugzilla, is subject to our Code of Conduct. How we collect and use information is described in our Privacy Policy.