Small Print
August 21, 2007 on 6:27 pm | In Linux, rants, suckage, leaks, crack |Could someone please tell me why notification-daemon holds ~51000 windows after two days of uptime?
Now, I accept the idea that maybe xrestop is lying (and mallum on my back is ready to hit me) but this sounds like a huge leak somewhere.
Please, someone tell me this is a known bug in Ubuntu Feisty and that Gutsy is already fixed.
6 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
Leave a comment
Powered by WordPress with Pool theme design by Borja Fernandez.
Entries and comments feeds.
Valid XHTML and CSS. ^Top^
Maybe it’s related to one of the following:
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/notification-daemon/+bug/67129
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/notification-daemon/+bug/102128
Comment by Martin Albisetti — Tuesday, August 21 2007 #
Apparently its fixed in gutsy.
Comment by Ross — Tuesday, August 21 2007 #
@martin
thanks for the pointers!
@ross
thanks. and a backport? this is quite an ugly leak.
Comment by ebassi — Tuesday, August 21 2007 #
Considering that backports are handled by the community, you might have to file a specific request for a backport at: https://launchpad.net/feisty-backports
Comment by Martin Albisetti — Wednesday, August 22 2007 #
Is it an ugly leak? It took you a long time after Feisty was released to notice it and nobody else seems to be complaining.
I agree, it sucks, but it’s hardly a security or usability risk. Unless the backport is trivial, it’s probably not worth the time.
Edit: yes, it’s a ugly leak. the number of windows in X is a 16 bit number, afair, and if after two days of real system use (with suspend in the middle) and mail notification you can dangerously reach that limit, all kinds of hell are going to fall down. you won’t be able to do anything - except kill X. I’d say it’s a usability risk, a potential data loss risk - and even go as far as saying it’s a security risk. so I’d expect at very least a backport. this bug, it seems from the reports on launchpad, was identified months ago.
Comment by sb — Wednesday, August 22 2007 #
@martin:
again, thanks.
Comment by ebassi — Wednesday, August 22 2007 #