On Mon, Sep 24, 2018 at 04:05:22PM -0400, Randell Jesup wrote:
On 9/20/18 5:59 PM, Andrew McCreight wrote:
On Wed, Sep 19, 2018 at 5:44 PM Kris Maglione <kmagli...@mozilla.com> wrote:
On Wed, Sep 19, 2018 at 05:37:46PM -0700, Bobby Holley wrote:
So, I don't think we need to do anything fancy with forking - we'd just
need to capture stacks and send them via telemetry rather than as a crash
report. This was the idea behind bug 1209131, which got pretty far along
but never made it to the finish line.
This would actually potentially even give us better information
than fork-and-crash, since we should be able to include JS
stacks in that setup too. We've never been able to do that in
ordinary crash reports, since breakpad doesn't know how to
unwind JS stacks, and we can't safely ask the JS runtime to do
it while we're crashing.
Though keep in mind that any stack that includes content JS is going to
likely count as PII, so it would have to be hidden by default on Soccorro.
Please note that it would be illegal to collect such data
without asking for explicit user consent first.
The GDPR requires a "positive opt-in" mechanism:
https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/guide-to-the-general-data-protection-regulation-gdpr/lawful-basis-for-processing/consent/
Our current Telemetry permission is an opt-out mechanism.
Right - this would need to be handled in a similar way to real crashes -
pop a crashreporter dialog to let the user submit it. We just wouldn't
kill the browser (and probably disable future semi-assertions until
restart once we hit and report one to avoid bugging the user too much).
For telemetry assertion reporting, I think BHR is a closer
analog. That already collects JS stacks.
_______________________________________________
dev-platform mailing list
dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
