Processed: Re: Bug#918499: libreoffice: fails with 'ERROR 4 forking process'
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org: > severity 918499 serious Bug #918499 [libreoffice] libreoffice: fails with 'ERROR 4 forking process' Severity set to 'serious' from 'important' > tag 918499 - unreproducible Bug #918499 [libreoffice] libreoffice: fails with 'ERROR 4 forking process' Removed tag(s) unreproducible. > tag 918499 - moreinfo Bug #918499 [libreoffice] libreoffice: fails with 'ERROR 4 forking process' Removed tag(s) moreinfo. > tag 918499 + confirmed Bug #918499 [libreoffice] libreoffice: fails with 'ERROR 4 forking process' Added tag(s) confirmed. > tag 918499 + pending Bug #918499 [libreoffice] libreoffice: fails with 'ERROR 4 forking process' Added tag(s) pending. > thanks Stopping processing here. Please contact me if you need assistance. -- 918499: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=918499 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
Bug#918499: libreoffice: fails with 'ERROR 4 forking process'
severity 918499 serious tag 918499 - unreproducible tag 918499 - moreinfo tag 918499 + confirmed tag 918499 + pending thanks Hi, On Mon, Jan 07, 2019 at 09:20:12PM +0700, Tunggul Arif Siswoyo wrote: > On Mon, 7 Jan 2019 20:46:28 +0700 Tunggul Arif Siswoyo > wrote: > > [skip] > > I think it is related with apparmor configs. I'm not sure what caused it Ah, good point. [...] > 1 profiles are in complain mode. > > >libreoffice-oopslash > > Note that this in complain mode only. But where is soffice.bin? ... > Jan 07 20:13:09 ikigai apparmor[430]: AppArmor parser error for > /etc/apparmor.d/usr.lib.libreoffice.program.soffice.bin in > /etc/apparmor.d/usr.lib.libreoffice.pr…ractions/mesa' > Jan 07 20:13:09 ikigai apparmor[430]: failed! > Jan 07 20:13:09 ikigai systemd[1]: apparmor.service: Main process exited, > code=exited, status=123/n/a > Jan 07 20:13:09 ikigai systemd[1]: apparmor.service: Failed with result > 'exit-code'. > Jan 07 20:13:09 ikigai systemd[1]: Failed to start Load AppArmor profiles. > Hint: Some lines were ellipsized, use -l to show in full. > > Error message above caused by invalid config in apparmor profile for > soffice.bin in line 90 : .. ah. here... :( > root@ikigai:~# aa-remove-unknown > AppArmor parser error for > /etc/apparmor.d/usr.lib.libreoffice.program.soffice.bin in > /etc/apparmor.d/usr.lib.libreoffice.program.soffice.bin at line 90: Could not > open 'abstrac > tions/mesa' Aha. :-( But this is present in testings apparmor rene@frodo:~$ dpkg -S /etc/apparmor.d/abstractions/mesa dpapparmor: /etc/apparmor.d/abstractions/mesa rene@frodo:~$ dpkg -l apparmor Gewünscht=Unbekannt/Installieren/R=Entfernen/P=Vollständig Löschen/Halten | Status=Nicht/Installiert/Config/U=Entpackt/halb konFiguriert/ Halb installiert/Trigger erWartet/Trigger anhängig |/ Fehler?=(kein)/R=Neuinstallation notwendig (Status, Fehler: GROSS=schlecht) ||/ Name Version Architektur Beschreibung +++-==---== ii apparmor 2.13.1-3+b1 amd64user-space parser utility for AppArmor In your other mail you (well, reportbug...) writes: | Versions of packages libreoffice-common recommends: | ii apparmor2.13-8 Why that old version of apparmor? Testing has 2.13.1 since last year November, actually even a newer one migrated today. See https://packages.qa.debian.org/a/apparmor.html But indeed the Recommends is not strict enough, according to http://bugs.debian.org/918499 this must be >= 2.13.1 instead of just >= 2.13. Will fix. (And add a conflicts against older apparmors.) But you should properly upgrade your system nevertheless. Regards, Rene
Processed: Re: Bug#918499: libreoffice: fails with 'ERROR 4 forking process'
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org: > tag 918499 + moreinfo Bug #918499 [libreoffice] libreoffice: fails with 'ERROR 4 forking process' Added tag(s) moreinfo. > tag 918499 + unreproducible Bug #918499 [libreoffice] libreoffice: fails with 'ERROR 4 forking process' Added tag(s) unreproducible. > severity 918499 important Bug #918499 [libreoffice] libreoffice: fails with 'ERROR 4 forking process' Severity set to 'important' from 'grave' > thanks Stopping processing here. Please contact me if you need assistance. -- 918499: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=918499 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
Bug#918499: libreoffice: fails with 'ERROR 4 forking process'
On Mon, 7 Jan 2019 20:46:28 +0700 Tunggul Arif Siswoyo wrote: [skip] I think it is related with apparmor configs. I'm not sure what caused it though. This is in my machine: root@ikigai:~# aa-status apparmor module is loaded. 18 profiles are loaded. 17 profiles are in enforce mode. /usr/bin/evince /usr/bin/evince-previewer /usr/bin/evince-previewer//sanitized_helper /usr/bin/evince-thumbnailer /usr/bin/evince//sanitized_helper /usr/bin/man /usr/lib/cups/backend/cups-pdf /usr/lib/ipsec/charon /usr/lib/ipsec/stroke /usr/sbin/cups-browsed /usr/sbin/cupsd /usr/sbin/cupsd//third_party firejail-default libreoffice-senddoc libreoffice-xpdfimport man_filter man_groff 1 profiles are in complain mode. libreoffice-oopslash 3 processes have profiles defined. 3 processes are in enforce mode. /usr/lib/ipsec/charon (739) /usr/sbin/cups-browsed (563)
Bug#918499: libreoffice: fails with 'ERROR 4 forking process'
On Mon, 7 Jan 2019 07:25:51 +0100 Rene Engelhard wrote: > On Sun, Jan 06, 2019 at 08:21:36PM -0500, David Zelinsky wrote: > > > No, you didn't. > > > > Yes, I did. If you think something may have gone wrong with it, then > > you might tell me that. But if you think I'm lying, you're wrong. > > I just said you didn't do a upgrade _recently_ because, see > below - purely based on looking at your versions. > > > And yet, when I do 'apt upgrade libreoffice' it tells me this is most > > recent version. > > 1:6.1.3-2? Impossible. Testing got 1:6.1.4-1 long ago, and now has > 1:6.1.4-3. > > See https://packages.qa.debian.org/libr/libreoffice.html > > Similar with other old versions of yours. > > Maybe out of date mirror? > > > >> libreoffice worked fine, but now fails to start. From the menu, > > > > > > My laptop is runnig testing, too and this worked and works. > > > > OK. Are you saying you're having trouble replicating my problem? > > Yes. No problem at all for weeks. > > > >> nothing happens. From command line, it fails with the subject error: > > >> > > >> % libreoffice > > > > > > And this works fine. > > > > Riffing on your first comment, if a package works for one person, that > > is not necessarily proof that it doesn't have a problem. Again, I was > > True, but given how long these versios are in testing as of now if it > was a general or a problem experienced often problem the report would > have come far sooner.. > > > I have no idea what this means. I did not explictly put OpenJDK 8 "in > > the config". As I said, I'm not a Debian developer, and I don't spend > > all my time looking at all the config files on my system (though I do > > look at a number of them). > > OK, but LO uses Java at parts. (It looks for /usr/bin/java. > > Here: > > rene@frodo:~/.config/libreoffice$ grep -r java * > 4/user/config/javasettings_Linux_X86_64.xml: xmlns="http://openoffice.org/2004/java/framework/1.0; > xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance;> > 4/user/config/javasettings_Linux_X86_64.xml: vendorUpdate="2013-05-02" autoSelect="true"> > 4/user/config/javasettings_Linux_X86_64.xml:file:///usr/lib/jvm/java-11-openjdk-amd64 > 4/user/config/javasettings_Linux_X86_64.xml: > 4/user/config/javasettings_Linux_X86_64.xml: Hello, I also use testing and encounter same problem. Couple days ago I'm upgrading libreoffice from 6.1.3 to 6.1.4-3 (latest in testing). After upgrade, everytime I start libreoffice it failed with "ERROR 4 forking process" Please advise if there's any additional info I can provide to solve this. Thank you -- tunggul -- Package-specific info: All deployed bundled extensions: All deployed shared extensions: All deployed user extensions: Experimental features enabled: Installed VCLplugs: Desired=Unknown/Install/Remove/Purge/Hold | Status=Not/Inst/Conf-files/Unpacked/halF-conf/Half-inst/trig-aWait/Trig-pend |/ Err?=(none)/Reinst-required (Status,Err: uppercase=bad) ||/ Name Version Architecture Description +++----=== un libreoffice-gtk2 (no description available) ii libreoffice-gtk3 1:6.1.4-3amd64office productivity suite -- GTK+ 3 integration un libreoffice-kde5 (no description available) -- System Information: Debian Release: buster/sid APT prefers testing APT policy: (500, 'testing') Architecture: amd64 (x86_64) Kernel: Linux 4.19.0-1-amd64 (SMP w/4 CPU cores) Locale: LANG=id_ID.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=id_ID.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8), LANGUAGE=id_ID.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8) Shell: /bin/sh linked to /usr/bin/dash Init: systemd (via /run/systemd/system) LSM: AppArmor: enabled Versions of packages libreoffice-core depends on: ii fontconfig2.13.1-1 ii fonts-opensymbol 2:102.10+LibO6.1.2-1 ii libboost-date-time1.67.0 1.67.0-11 ii libboost-locale1.67.0 1.67.0-11 ii libc6 2.28-2 ii libcairo2 1.15.12-1 ii libclucene-contribs1v52.3.3.4+dfsg-1 ii libclucene-core1v52.3.3.4+dfsg-1 ii libcmis-0.5-5v5 0.5.1+git20160603-3+b1 ii libcups2 2.2.8-5 ii libcurl3-gnutls 7.61.0-1 ii libdbus-1-3 1.12.12-1 ii libdbus-glib-1-2 0.110-3 ii libdconf1 0.30.0-1 ii libeot0 0.01-5 ii libepoxy0 1.5.2-0.3 ii libexpat1 2.2.6-1 ii libexttextcat-2.0-0 3.4.5-1 ii libfontconfig12.13.1-1 ii libfreetype6 2.8.1-2 ii libgcc1 1:8.2.0-13 ii libglib2.0-0 2.58.1-2 ii libgpgmepp6 1.12.0-4 ii libgraphite2-31.3.12-1 ii libharfbuzz-icu0 1.9.0-1 ii libharfbuzz0b 1.9.0-1 ii libhunspell-1.7-0 1.7.0-2 ii libhyphen02.8.8-5 ii libice6 2:1.0.9-2 ii libicu63
Bug#918499: libreoffice: fails with 'ERROR 4 forking process'
On Sun, Jan 06, 2019 at 08:21:36PM -0500, David Zelinsky wrote: > > No, you didn't. > > Yes, I did. If you think something may have gone wrong with it, then > you might tell me that. But if you think I'm lying, you're wrong. I just said you didn't do a upgrade _recently_ because, see below - purely based on looking at your versions. > And yet, when I do 'apt upgrade libreoffice' it tells me this is most > recent version. 1:6.1.3-2? Impossible. Testing got 1:6.1.4-1 long ago, and now has 1:6.1.4-3. See https://packages.qa.debian.org/libr/libreoffice.html Similar with other old versions of yours. Maybe out of date mirror? > >> libreoffice worked fine, but now fails to start. From the menu, > > > > My laptop is runnig testing, too and this worked and works. > > OK. Are you saying you're having trouble replicating my problem? Yes. No problem at all for weeks. > >> nothing happens. From command line, it fails with the subject error: > >> > >> % libreoffice > > > > And this works fine. > > Riffing on your first comment, if a package works for one person, that > is not necessarily proof that it doesn't have a problem. Again, I was True, but given how long these versios are in testing as of now if it was a general or a problem experienced often problem the report would have come far sooner.. > I have no idea what this means. I did not explictly put OpenJDK 8 "in > the config". As I said, I'm not a Debian developer, and I don't spend > all my time looking at all the config files on my system (though I do > look at a number of them). OK, but LO uses Java at parts. (It looks for /usr/bin/java. Here: rene@frodo:~/.config/libreoffice$ grep -r java * 4/user/config/javasettings_Linux_X86_64.xml:http://openoffice.org/2004/java/framework/1.0; xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance;> 4/user/config/javasettings_Linux_X86_64.xml: 4/user/config/javasettings_Linux_X86_64.xml:file:///usr/lib/jvm/java-11-openjdk-amd64 4/user/config/javasettings_Linux_X86_64.xml: 4/user/config/javasettings_Linux_X86_64.xml: But in my experience it notices default changes and updates the path... Apparently not, apparently only when the old version is gone... And your reportbug-generated info shows this shows you have ii default-jre [java6-runtime] 2:1.10-67 installed default-jdk | 2:1.11-71 | testing| amd64, arm64, armel, armhf, i386, mips, mips64el, mipsel, ppc64el, s390x and this since November (ok, -70 since November). So, please, do a upgrade. With a clean, current testing. Then let's see further. Regards, Rene
Bug#918499: libreoffice: fails with 'ERROR 4 forking process'
First, I apologize for any way in which I might be misusing the bug-reporting system. Really I thought I was doing a service by reporting this. As an aside, if, as I hope, you want to encourage people to use Debian and to report bugs, I would suggest you might want to adopt a more more civil tone. Rene Engelhard writes: > tag 918499 + moreinfo > tag 918499 + unreproducible > severity 918499 important > thanks > > Hi, > > On Sun, Jan 06, 2019 at 01:46:09PM -0500, David Zelinsky wrote: >> Package: libreoffice >> Version: 1:6.1.3-2 >> Severity: grave >> Justification: renders package unusable > > Sorry, but not every problem one person has is a *release-critical* > bug in said package. Especially not if that testing is ooold. That's a fair point. But, not being very experienced with the debian bug reporting system, this seemed like category whose description best fit what I was observing. The package was clearly unusable for me (in the intended manner), and I had no way of telling how it behaves on other systems. >> I'm running "testing", and recently did a dist-upgrade. Previously > > No, you didn't. Yes, I did. If you think something may have gone wrong with it, then you might tell me that. But if you think I'm lying, you're wrong. About a week ago, I ran 'apt update; apt upgrade' (or maybe it was 'apt dist-uprade', I'm not sure.) There was in fact an error, after which a ran with 'fix-broken' and everything seemed OK. The fact is that before that upgrade, libreoffice worked. After it, it did not. Your denial is not very helpful. > ... If you did you wouldn't have a loads of obsolete versions of stuff > installed. Like default-jre pointing to 10 whereas it is 11 since > looong. And LibreOffice 1:6.1.3-2 already was obsoleted. (At least > that is what you report it against and your reportbug-generated info > shows). And yet, when I do 'apt upgrade libreoffice' it tells me this is most recent version. >> libreoffice worked fine, but now fails to start. From the menu, > > My laptop is runnig testing, too and this worked and works. OK. Are you saying you're having trouble replicating my problem? >> nothing happens. From command line, it fails with the subject error: >> >> % libreoffice > > And this works fine. Riffing on your first comment, if a package works for one person, that is not necessarily proof that it doesn't have a problem. Again, I was trying to be helpful in identifying a problem that others might experience. >> read(6, "/usr/lib/jvm/java-8-openjdk-amd6"..., 4096) = 221 > > So you use OpenJDK 8 in the config? Then see > https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=911925 I have no idea what this means. I did not explictly put OpenJDK 8 "in the config". As I said, I'm not a Debian developer, and I don't spend all my time looking at all the config files on my system (though I do look at a number of them). I did look at the bug report you referenced, but I'm not sure what the implications are for my situation. If it explains my problem, feel free to say so. > But at this stage (oosplash) this shouldn't matter yet... As you say. -David
Bug#918499: libreoffice: fails with 'ERROR 4 forking process'
tag 918499 + moreinfo tag 918499 + unreproducible severity 918499 important thanks Hi, On Sun, Jan 06, 2019 at 01:46:09PM -0500, David Zelinsky wrote: > Package: libreoffice > Version: 1:6.1.3-2 > Severity: grave > Justification: renders package unusable Sorry, but not every problem one person has is a *release-critical* bug in said package. Especially not if that testing is ooold. > I'm running "testing", and recently did a dist-upgrade. Previously No, you didn't. If you did you wouldn't have a loads of obsolete versions of stuff installed. Like default-jre pointing to 10 whereas it is 11 since looong. And LibreOffice 1:6.1.3-2 already was obsoleted. (At least that is what you report it against and your reportbug-generated info shows). > libreoffice worked fine, but now fails to start. From the menu, My laptop is runnig testing, too and this worked and works. > nothing happens. From command line, it fails with the subject error: > > % libreoffice And this works fine. > read(6, "/usr/lib/jvm/java-8-openjdk-amd6"..., 4096) = 221 So you use OpenJDK 8 in the config? Then see https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=911925 But at this stage (oosplash) this shouldn't matter yet... Regards, Rene
Bug#918499: libreoffice: fails with 'ERROR 4 forking process'
Package: libreoffice
Version: 1:6.1.3-2
Severity: grave
Justification: renders package unusable
Dear Maintainer,
I'm running "testing", and recently did a dist-upgrade. Previously
libreoffice worked fine, but now fails to start. From the menu,
nothing happens. From command line, it fails with the subject error:
% libreoffice
ERROR 4 forking process
Poking around at the symlinks and scripts, it seems it is actually
trying to execute /usr/lib/libreoffice/program/oosplash:
% /usr/lib/libreoffice/program/oosplash
ERROR 4 forking process
I tried running with --strace and was surprised to find the
application actually opened and seemed to work normally. Looking at
the script, with any of the debug options it runs soffice.bin instead
of oosplash, and indeed this works:
% /usr/lib/libreoffice/program/soffice.bin # runs normally
I don't know enough about libreoffice to know if any of this is
Debian-specific. And don't have the wherewithal right now to download
a stock version from libreoffice.com to see if it exhibits the same
problem.
In case it's useful, I'll attache the strace output below.
Thanks.
-David
begin strace output
% strace /usr/lib/libreoffice/program/oosplash
execve("/usr/lib/libreoffice/program/oosplash",
["/usr/lib/libreoffice/program/oos"...], 0x7ffdeaef6480 /* 54 vars */) = 0
brk(NULL) = 0x55e538c94000
access("/etc/ld.so.nohwcap", F_OK) = -1 ENOENT (No such file or directory)
readlink("/proc/self/exe", "/usr/lib/libreoffice/program/oos"..., 4096) = 37
access("/etc/ld.so.preload", R_OK) = -1 ENOENT (No such file or directory)
openat(AT_FDCWD,
"/usr/lib/libreoffice/program/tls/x86_64/x86_64/libXinerama.so.1",
O_RDONLY|O_CLOEXEC) = -1 ENOENT (No such file or directory)
stat("/usr/lib/libreoffice/program/tls/x86_64/x86_64", 0x7ffe049e3460) = -1
ENOENT (No such file or directory)
openat(AT_FDCWD, "/usr/lib/libreoffice/program/tls/x86_64/libXinerama.so.1",
O_RDONLY|O_CLOEXEC) = -1 ENOENT (No such file or directory)
stat("/usr/lib/libreoffice/program/tls/x86_64", 0x7ffe049e3460) = -1 ENOENT (No
such file or directory)
openat(AT_FDCWD, "/usr/lib/libreoffice/program/tls/x86_64/libXinerama.so.1",
O_RDONLY|O_CLOEXEC) = -1 ENOENT (No such file or directory)
stat("/usr/lib/libreoffice/program/tls/x86_64", 0x7ffe049e3460) = -1 ENOENT (No
such file or directory)
openat(AT_FDCWD, "/usr/lib/libreoffice/program/tls/libXinerama.so.1",
O_RDONLY|O_CLOEXEC) = -1 ENOENT (No such file or directory)
stat("/usr/lib/libreoffice/program/tls", 0x7ffe049e3460) = -1 ENOENT (No such
file or directory)
openat(AT_FDCWD, "/usr/lib/libreoffice/program/x86_64/x86_64/libXinerama.so.1",
O_RDONLY|O_CLOEXEC) = -1 ENOENT (No such file or directory)
stat("/usr/lib/libreoffice/program/x86_64/x86_64", 0x7ffe049e3460) = -1 ENOENT
(No such file or directory)
openat(AT_FDCWD, "/usr/lib/libreoffice/program/x86_64/libXinerama.so.1",
O_RDONLY|O_CLOEXEC) = -1 ENOENT (No such file or directory)
stat("/usr/lib/libreoffice/program/x86_64", 0x7ffe049e3460) = -1 ENOENT (No
such file or directory)
openat(AT_FDCWD, "/usr/lib/libreoffice/program/x86_64/libXinerama.so.1",
O_RDONLY|O_CLOEXEC) = -1 ENOENT (No such file or directory)
stat("/usr/lib/libreoffice/program/x86_64", 0x7ffe049e3460) = -1 ENOENT (No
such file or directory)
openat(AT_FDCWD, "/usr/lib/libreoffice/program/libXinerama.so.1",
O_RDONLY|O_CLOEXEC) = -1 ENOENT (No such file or directory)
stat("/usr/lib/libreoffice/program", {st_mode=S_IFDIR|0755, st_size=36864,
...}) = 0
openat(AT_FDCWD, "/etc/ld.so.cache", O_RDONLY|O_CLOEXEC) = 3
fstat(3, {st_mode=S_IFREG|0644, st_size=263520, ...}) = 0
mmap(NULL, 263520, PROT_READ, MAP_PRIVATE, 3, 0) = 0x7fe1f54c
close(3)= 0
access("/etc/ld.so.nohwcap", F_OK) = -1 ENOENT (No such file or directory)
openat(AT_FDCWD, "/usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libXinerama.so.1",
O_RDONLY|O_CLOEXEC) = 3
read(3, "\177ELF\2\1\1\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\3\0>\0\1\0\0\0\20\21\0\0\0\0\0\0"...,
832) = 832
fstat(3, {st_mode=S_IFREG|0644, st_size=14496, ...}) = 0
mmap(NULL, 8192, PROT_READ|PROT_WRITE, MAP_PRIVATE|MAP_ANONYMOUS, -1, 0) =
0x7fe1f54be000
mmap(NULL, 16680, PROT_READ, MAP_PRIVATE|MAP_DENYWRITE, 3, 0) = 0x7fe1f54b9000
mmap(0x7fe1f54ba000, 4096, PROT_READ|PROT_EXEC,
MAP_PRIVATE|MAP_FIXED|MAP_DENYWRITE, 3, 0x1000) = 0x7fe1f54ba000
mmap(0x7fe1f54bb000, 4096, PROT_READ, MAP_PRIVATE|MAP_FIXED|MAP_DENYWRITE, 3,
0x2000) = 0x7fe1f54bb000
mmap(0x7fe1f54bc000, 8192, PROT_READ|PROT_WRITE,
MAP_PRIVATE|MAP_FIXED|MAP_DENYWRITE, 3, 0x2000) = 0x7fe1f54bc000
close(3)= 0
openat(AT_FDCWD, "/usr/lib/libreoffice/program/libX11.so.6",
O_RDONLY|O_CLOEXEC) = -1 ENOENT (No such file or directory)
access("/etc/ld.so.nohwcap", F_OK) = -1 ENOENT (No such file or directory)
openat(AT_FDCWD, "/usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libX11.so.6", O_RDONLY|O_CLOEXEC) =
3
read(3,
