I just noticed that the mtdev source I've been looking at is Debian unstable, which is a tad newer than natty, and in particular, adds an additional safety check in the front of mtdev_open. If indeed a null pointer is passed in to mtdev_open's first arg, it would quickly segfault (though I can't see why the fault would be in mtdev_open and not mtdev_init).
I wonder if this might not be the immediate cause of the crash. I don't know how to quickly get the natty source for evdev (with the patches to call mtdev from Chase Douglas); the Debian unstable version of evdev does not yet include that patch. From the one I see ( http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg-devel/2011-January/018405.html) this shouldn't happen: The dev could only be bad if EvdevOpenDevice were to have pEvdev->device set, but pEvdev->mtdev still unset. That can't happen afaict, though I would prefer the patch initialized mtdev in a separate branch to make that clearer. Still, I'm interested to know if the patch to check the args to mtdev_open was prompted by actual problems or just general cleanup. It is also odd to me that the crash is reported to be at mtdev_open+22, but according to gdb, that's in the middle of an instruction, and if the PC got pointed there by mistake, its a register-only instruction anyhow, so it can't fault.
-- Ubuntu-installer mailing list [email protected] Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-installer
