Tigervnc-server-module Crashes After EL 6.3 Update

Home » CentOS » Tigervnc-server-module Crashes After EL 6.3 Update
CentOS 17 Comments

We began experiencing failed VNC connections to the console display on servers that have been updated to EL 6.3. No such failures have occurred on similar connections to EL 6.2 servers.

On the client machine a normal VNCviewer display appears with the expected graphical login until the mouse pointer is moved within the boundaries of the VNCviewer window. At this point the window closes and an error message appears in both a pop-up window and in the terminal window in which the session was initiated stating “read: Connection reset by peer (104)”.

On the server end, a core dump is generated and a abrt bug report is created.


17 thoughts on - Tigervnc-server-module Crashes After EL 6.3 Update

  • OK, if you find that this solves your problems for sure, I will build the SRPM outside of mock and see if it is different.

  • I’ve confirmed the same faulty behavior for the update to 6.3 on our dual-head systems.

    Also confirmed is that replacing the 6.3 base tigervnc-server-module rpm with the rebuilt one does fix the problem on the dual-head systems.

    One disturbing difference between single and dual headed systems is that on the dual-head systems Xorg generates a core dump and completely freezes up when the mouse movement is detected. Single-head systems just fail to connect. This complication could be somehow caused by our proprietary “ATI FirePro 2270” drivers, though. Once the rebuilt module is installed the systems run fine.

    I’ve also updated the upstream bug report.


  • Both builds work without problems on single and dual-head systems here. As with all the other tests, I only replaced the tigervnc-server-module package on each host.

    I’ve also confirmed that i686 platforms suffer from the same bug. These too, however, are easily remedied by replacing the base tigervnc-server-module RPM with a locally re-build one.


  • Thanks for testing.

    I will build a new version for release with an incremented version and get you to test those before for release if you would do so for me.

    Thanks, Johnny Hughes

  • Would you also test that these work:


    (same link, newer files :D)

    NOTE: It is CentOS policy that we do not correct upstream bugs in our distributions directly … therefore these will not be released into the main distro until upstream releases an update. I know that is a PITA
    for people, however, it is our policy and we can’t break it.

  • Hi guys,

    Could you be so kind to trim those quotes a little?

    Something in the bug report struck me as odd: The original report is from May 9th. Checking Red Hat’s FTP I see there is a more recent SRPM
    than the one you are discussing.


    Seems like this update wasn’t picked up even though it’s two months old, and the previous (current) one was rebuilt three months after it was released by upstream.

    Regards, Leonard.

  • That srpm is dated 06/13/2011 (from year 2011). The latest/current
    (tigervnc-1.0.90-0.17.20110314svn4359.el6.src.rpm) is dated 11/09/2011
    (also from year 2011). Note also the difference between -0.15 and
    -0.17. :-)


  • Hello Akemi,

    Right, my bad. Too many numbers got me confused ;) . Does explain why my script didn’t pick it up :) .

    Anyway, I’m afraid most of the missing updates and packages I reported just now are actual issues.

    Regards, Leonard.

  • Sorry Johnny. I’ve been deep in some internal issues past few days –
    Migration planning for Win7, building out new CentOS 6 servers, and such.

    I’ll be happy to test these.


  • I haven’t heard anyone on this list verify that the problem does, in fact, exist on RHEL 6. It would be nice to confirm this is an upstream bug versus a packaging issue with CentOS. If there are members here with mixed upstream and CentOS environments, such confirmation would be welcome. We just allowed the last of our entitlements to expire so I
    can’t do it here.


  • what missing updates are you talking about ? your last few emails about missing packages was down to your script not working and you not considering binary / source relationships.

  • Got them and tested on 3 different machines, 2 x86_64 (one single and one dual-head) and one i386. All work well. This time I updated all tigervnc packages, not just tigervnc-server-module.

    I added all the packages to our internal “localCentOS” repo so all our systems will pickup the update, thanks to your incremental version number change. I use the localCentOS repo for one-off rpmbuilds and things like this that don’t come through normal channels.

    Thanks for the work you put into this Johnny, as well as your continuing efforts in this project. You often don’t get the credit you deserve.


  • Hello Karanbir,

    Yes, my mail above predates Johnny’s final conclusion. Indeed all packages are accounted for.

    Regards, Leonard.