On Do, 28.10.21 12:10, David Cantrell (dcantrell@xxxxxxxxxx) wrote: > Thanks for revising the change proposal and filling in more details. > After reading through it, I have some questions: > > 1) The proposal notes that users tend to combine built packages from > different distributions. Even in the current environment, do we care > about those use cases without also getting a reproducer for Fedora? I'd see it this way: ultimately, if this gets adopted by multiple distros this annotation will helps us separating out the reports by distro, and then ignore everything but fedora. i.e. if someone deploys a debian or ubuntu container on a fedora host this should be something we shouldn't be bothered with supporting. But right now a coredump generated that way won't tell us much about the situation. But once this spec is adopted this becomes easy: if we get a report we'll immediately see that the code that aborted was actually from a different distro, and we can point the reporter to that and tell them politely to ask the other distro for help, or alternatively invest the time and reproduce the issue with the binary provided by fedora instead. So, having this info around us allows us to be more efficient with "not caring" for non-fedora issues. > For me, I feel that in a situation like that where a user has > submitted a bug report that implies using a binary from some other > distribution will lead me to ask "ok, but does this happen with the > packages provided in Fedora? If so, how can I reproduce the problem > locally?" So while these scenarios are described in the proposal, are > they something that Fedora is trying to support? Well, I don't think Fedora has to care about crashes in other distro's binaries. we have more than enough to look after anyway. But I do think we should make it easier to detect this situation and more easily provide helpful pointers how to find someone else who might be interested or what to do to make fedora interested. > 3) The proposal notes making crash reporting more user-readable. NVRs > instead of Build-IDs, for instance. Why can't systemd ask debuginfod > for that information for reporting? Why does this need to be embedded > in the ELF objects? If it's a value-add, then it could happen if > debuginfod is set up and just have it fall back on the current > reporting mechanism. We want to be able to do things generically in an offline fashion in systemd-coredump. I.e. we run the coredump analyzer in a tight sandbox, and we want quick answers without relying on the network. The goal of systemd-coredump is to make a coredump something that is primarily a relatively cheapish log event, and were we do analysis as much as possible locally, automatically, securely, in privacy and quickly. If we'd always talk to the network we'd have to open our sandbox quite a bit, we'd be dependent on external services, we'd leak some data to the outside, we'd be unreliable and slower — and all that even though we are interested in only a single string of data ultimately. (I think debuginfod is excellent, but I think it would probably be a consumer of this spec, not a replacement. for example, consider that the spec has a suggested field 'debugInfoUrl' already, which would inform debugging tools about the debuginfod servers to talk to to acquire extended debug info data) Lennart -- Lennart Poettering, Berlin _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
