[#44036] [ruby-trunk - Feature #6242][Open] Ruby should support lists — "shugo (Shugo Maeda)" <redmine@...>

20 messages 2012/04/01

[#44084] [ruby-trunk - Bug #6246][Open] 1.9.3-p125 intermittent segfault — "jshow (Jodi Showers)" <jodi@...>

22 messages 2012/04/02

[#44156] [ruby-trunk - Feature #6265][Open] Remove 'useless' 'concatenation' syntax — "rosenfeld (Rodrigo Rosenfeld Rosas)" <rr.rosas@...>

45 messages 2012/04/06

[#44163] [ruby-trunk - Bug #6266][Open] encoding related exception with recent integrated psych — "jonforums (Jon Forums)" <redmine@...>

10 messages 2012/04/06

[#44303] [ruby-trunk - Feature #6284][Open] Add composition for procs — "pabloh (Pablo Herrero)" <pablodherrero@...>

57 messages 2012/04/12

[#44349] [ruby-trunk - Feature #6293][Open] new queue / blocking queues — "tenderlovemaking (Aaron Patterson)" <aaron@...>

10 messages 2012/04/13

[#44402] [ruby-trunk - Feature #6308][Open] Eliminate delegation from WeakRef — "headius (Charles Nutter)" <headius@...>

20 messages 2012/04/17

[#44403] [ruby-trunk - Feature #6309][Open] Add a reference queue for weak references — "headius (Charles Nutter)" <headius@...>

15 messages 2012/04/17

[#44533] [ruby-trunk - Bug #6341][Open] SIGSEGV: Thread.new { fork { GC.start } }.join — "rudolf (r stu3)" <redmine@...>

24 messages 2012/04/22

[#44630] [ruby-trunk - Feature #6361][Open] Bitwise string operations — "MartinBosslet (Martin Bosslet)" <Martin.Bosslet@...>

31 messages 2012/04/26

[#44648] [ruby-trunk - Feature #6367][Open] #same? for Enumerable — "prijutme4ty (Ilya Vorontsov)" <prijutme4ty@...>

16 messages 2012/04/26

[#44704] [ruby-trunk - Feature #6373][Open] public #self — "trans (Thomas Sawyer)" <transfire@...>

61 messages 2012/04/27

[#44748] [ruby-trunk - Feature #6376][Open] Feature lookup and checking if feature is loaded — "trans (Thomas Sawyer)" <transfire@...>

13 messages 2012/04/28

[ruby-core:44604] Re: [ruby-trunk - Bug #6246] 1.9.3-p125 intermittent segfault

From: Paul Brannan <curlypaul924@...>
Date: 2012-04-24 20:32:18 UTC
List: ruby-core #44604
> 
/home/deploy/.rvm/rubies/ruby-1.9.3-p125/lib/libruby.so.1.9(rb_gc_call_finalizer_at_exit+0x219) [0x7f9f37246359] gc.c:3044
> /home/deploy/.rvm/rubies/ruby-1.9.3-p125/lib/libruby.so.1.9(ruby_cleanup+0x1ec) [0x7f9f37233fac] eval.c:101
> /home/deploy/.rvm/rubies/ruby-1.9.3-p125/lib/libruby.so.1.9(ruby_run_node+0x25) [0x7f9f37234205] eval.c:244

So we're cleaning up, and:

> #0  st_lookup (table=0x0, key=792, value=0x7fffffffc858) at st.c:330
> #1  0x00007ffff7b1629f in search_method (recv=<value optimized out>,
mid=792) at vm_method.c:374
> #2  rb_method_entry_get_without_cache (recv=<value optimized out>,
mid=792) at vm_method.c:393

Someone called a method on an object that had already been GC'd.

That someone is in the logging gem:

  ObjectSpace.define_finalizer self, Logging.method(:shutdown)

Ruby makes no guarantees about the order in which finalizers are called
at exit.  This can be problematic, because the finalizer may need to
perform operations on objects that have already been GC'd.

I have avoided this before in C code by explicitly checking for a GC'd
object.  But since the logging gem is ruby (not C), I don't know what it
should do.

IMO, it should have one finalizer per appender, rather than a single
finalizer that cleans up all the appenders.  But I'm not sure that would
fix the crash.

Paul



In This Thread