CentOS - May 2016 - C6 Firefox 45.1 segmentation faults

On 05/02/2016 01:46 PM, Bill Maltby (C4B) wrote:
> On Mon, 2016-05-02 at 11:29 -0700, Robert Arkiletian wrote:
>> on updated C6 x86_64 Firefox ESR 45.1.0 is seg faulting on various
sites,
>> mainly media sites. Tried uninstalling flash-plugin 11.2.202.616 but
>> problem persists.
>>
>> Work around: installed Seamonkey from epel repo
>>
>> Anyone else experiencing unstable behaviour of FF 45.1 on C6?
> 
> Day it was out I got the same. Since I already had some difficulties
> with RH6/C6 upgrades changing the way things worked (or didn't, such as
> telinit), I just did a yum downgrade FF and and kept using my tools as
> tools.
> 
Well, that update is critical for security, so I would try to help find
the issues (we can feed back to RH and help them fix) .. rather than
using something with critical security issues to browse the web.

Some things that can help here:

1.  A site where you always get a crash.

2.  If you also have access to RHEL-6, test the firefox from RHEL-6 on
the same site to verify if this is a RHEL or CentOS issue.

Thanks,
Johnny Hughes


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL:
<http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos/attachments/20160502/2f66c56d/attachment-0001.sig>

On Mon, 2016-05-02 at 14:06 -0500, Johnny Hughes wrote:
> On 05/02/2016 01:46 PM, Bill Maltby (C4B) wrote:
> <snip>
> >> Anyone else experiencing unstable behaviour of FF 45.1 on C6?
> > 
> > Day it was out I got the same. Since I already had some difficulties
> > with RH6/C6 upgrades changing the way things worked (or didn't,
such as
> > telinit), I just did a yum downgrade FF and and kept using my tools as
> > tools.
> > 
> 
> Well, that update is critical for security, so I would try to help find
> the issues (we can feed back to RH and help them fix) .. rather than
> using something with critical security issues to browse the web.
I would like to, but since CentOS got integrated with RH I got the
feeling that a non-CentOS problem didn't get help here?

With the upgrade to ... 6.6 I, and others, reported problems with X vs.
run-level changes causing issues.

Starting here
https://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos/2014-November/148180.html

Dec 7 2014 bug report: https://bugs.centos.org/view.php?id=7972

Nothing happened even though I took the time to post a bug and collect
pertinent data and things discovered into a pastebin file with links for
everything.

So I made a guess that sans a RH subscription I had no way to pursue a
non-CentOS issue.

N.B. I'm operating based on a (faulty?) memory that prior to absorption
into RH we used to post bugs on CentOS and someone at CentOS would
examine, do whatever else, maybe request more info, and then put a bug
(or requesst the reporter to do so?) on RH if appropriate and post
tracking # to the list.

That did not happen in this case even though the defect was obviously
upstream, some potential causes were identified, based on what I had
enough knowledge to investigate, and so I just adapted myself to what I
thought the new environment was by not expending time & effort that
would lead nowhere.

This was reasonable for me since I had "worked around" the conflict
between where X starts up by default and the assumed available VTs in
the new-fangled start-up stuff.

In the past I had tried to use the crash reporting thingy that Gnome
provides, but I never had a clue where/how to send that stuff.

As far as the security concerns, I'm a careful user and seldom "click
through" on things I don't recognize in e-mails or browsers. That's
given me decent results for over a decade now.

I have it easier than many of you folks since I don't admin anything but
my own self-built & configured LAN behind an IPCop box and have only a
few users: me, myself and I. And my wife & relatives might use my WAP to
get to the net on the IPhones & such.
> 
> Some things that can help here:
> 
> 1.  A site where you always get a crash.
That would be tough - when I open FF it's on five desktops with multiple
tabs open to myltiple sites in each instance.

I can say this though. It acted the same on two CentOS-6.7 fully updated
(identically) boxes (different hardware) that open (mostly) different
sets of tabs. But in both cases there's some similarity in that sites
with javascript and on which server-provided java applications (my boxes
are fully updated with the latest "official" java plugins) are
activated
early (Investorshub, part of the Advfn financial services network).

ISTR that's where the crash happened in each case as I RealVNC into the
secondary box to ran the java app in the browser and display results on
my primary unit.
> 
> 2.  If you also have access to RHEL-6, test the firefox from RHEL-6 on
> the same site to verify if this is a RHEL or CentOS issue.
Don't have RH subscription or installation.
> 
> Thanks,
> Johnny Hughes
> <snip>
Thanks for responding,
Bill

On 05/02/2016 04:43 PM, Bill Maltby (C4B) wrote:
> On Mon, 2016-05-02 at 14:06 -0500, Johnny Hughes wrote:
>> On 05/02/2016 01:46 PM, Bill Maltby (C4B) wrote:
>> <snip>
> 
>>>> Anyone else experiencing unstable behaviour of FF 45.1 on C6?
>>>
>>> Day it was out I got the same. Since I already had some
difficulties
>>> with RH6/C6 upgrades changing the way things worked (or didn't,
such as
>>> telinit), I just did a yum downgrade FF and and kept using my tools
as
>>> tools.
>>>
>>
>> Well, that update is critical for security, so I would try to help find
>> the issues (we can feed back to RH and help them fix) .. rather than
>> using something with critical security issues to browse the web.
> 
> I would like to, but since CentOS got integrated with RH I got the
> feeling that a non-CentOS problem didn't get help here?
> 
Nothing has changed .. we never fixed non CentOS problems and rolled
those into the main tree.  We have (and still do .. see
http://people.centos.org/hughesjr/firefox-45.1.0-1.1.el5.centos/) ..
sometimes provide some temporary things while fixes are being done by
the outstanding RHEL engineers to fix issues.

CentOS Linux is now what it always has been, a rebuild of the RHEL
source code .. warts and all .. modified to remove branding to comply
with the redistribution requirements.  We don't .. nor have we ever ..
added in fixes to the main line trees that are not upstream in the RHEL
source code.

We do have many repositories where we manage content an try to fix
problems:  Extras, CentOSPlus, Special Interest Group content, etc.  We
do try to fix issues there as the come up.
> With the upgrade to ... 6.6 I, and others, reported problems with X vs.
> run-level changes causing issues.
> 
> Starting here
> https://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos/2014-November/148180.html
> 
> Dec 7 2014 bug report: https://bugs.centos.org/view.php?id=7972
> 
> Nothing happened even though I took the time to post a bug and collect
> pertinent data and things discovered into a pastebin file with links for
> everything.
> 
> So I made a guess that sans a RH subscription I had no way to pursue a
> non-CentOS issue.
If one finds that there is a non-CentOS caused issue (but it is a RHEL
issue), then they can open a bug on bugzilla.redhat.com.  If you don't
have a RHEL subscription, it might be better if someone else opens the
bug there, but someone from the community who can verify it is a RHEL
bug can certainly open up a report.  The RH Engineers want to make RHEL
better, they want to fix real issues.  There will obviously NOT be any
kind of SLA to get it fixed by a deadline, but they absolutely want to
fix RHEL issues.

That is the actually the whole point of bugs.centos.org.  We need 'the
community' to look at bugs.centos.org and see if they can determine if
bugs are CentOS related or RHEL related.  If RHEL related, opening bugs
on bugzilla.redhat.com.  If CentOS related, help us fix them and test
them, etc. by creating patches.

We only have 5 total people on the CentOS team to do things.  These
things include building all the packages that get released for the 3
base distos, QA those packages, manage all the Special Interest Group
interactions, maintain a build infrastructure fr the base distros,
maintain the Community Build System infrastructure for SIG builds,
maintain the Mirror infrastructure, maintain all the QA / CI
infrastructure, maintain all the overhead infrastructure (email servers,
DNS servers, domain registrations, mailing list machines, IRC channels,
authentication servers for all those things, etc).  So we are managing
hundreds of servers all over the world.

We are also managing alternative architectures like i686, armhfp
(arm32), aarch64 (arm64).

Then there is all the cloud image things going on so there are cloud
images for AWS, Oracle, Azure, vagrant boxes, docker images, vendor
clouds, etc. etc. etc.

The bottom line is .. CentOS needs community members, like our
outstanding QA team and Forum Moderators (thanks guys and girls !!!) to
be able to make things better.  We need those community members to do
lots of things.

All the mailing list, forums, bugs databases .. they are all there to
help facilitate for 'the community' to help itself and make CentOS Linux
better .. by making RHEL better.  If you can also use CentOS Linux for
things that you want and it works for you, excellent.  It is open source
and free and that is what its for.

<snip>

In the case of this particular issue <firefox 45.1 in c6>, it seems to
have been an add on repo (Nux!) that did not work.  And thru discussion
on this list, it got fixed.  I absolutely love the Nux! repo .. I use it
on all my CentOS desktops .. thank you Nux! .. and the way this got
fixed is exactly what I am talking about.  Nux! has things not in the
RHEL source code and not in EPEL that are necessary (IMHO for good
desktops.  He is an active list member and he (as a member of the
community) provides invaluable help on this list as well as an
outstanding service to the CentOS community with his repos.

We want other things, even things in CentOS Linux where the issue is in
RHEL. to be handled the same way as this issue.  Start a discussion on
the list, then if necessary report it at bugs.centos.org and try to
determine if it is a RHEL or CENtOS introduced issue (or maybe an EPEL
or Nux! issue).

While you are at bugs.centos.org .. look thorough open bugs.  If you
(you is anyone, not you Bill .. anywhere you is used in this reply :D)
know how to fix something, propose a fix.  If you can determine an open
problem is a RHEL source issue and not something added by CentOS ..
search the Red Hat bugzilla and see if it is reported.  If it is
reported, link the bug in the Red Hat bugzilla to the CentOS bug.  Put a
link back the the Red Hat bugzilla in the CentOS bug in the commments
section.  Feed Back info if you have any.  That sends an email to people
who might look at the bug in either place.

Do this for bugs that you file .. and for any open bug that you might
have some knowledge about.

Thanks,
Johnny Hughes

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL:
<http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos/attachments/20160506/7cdfa271/attachment-0001.sig>