Re: Crash reports from GNOME bindings
- From: Brent Smith <gnome nextreality net>
- To: Fernando Herrera <fherrera onirica com>
- Cc: Gustavo Carneiro <gjc inescporto pt>, GNOME Desktop Hackers <desktop-devel-list gnome org>
- Subject: Re: Crash reports from GNOME bindings
- Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2006 20:11:48 -0600
Fernando Herrera wrote:
On 6/18/06, Gustavo Carneiro <gjc inescporto pt> wrote:
This sounds like a very good idea. But could you give more details?
What does the --include option accept? A string, file name, ...? I
rather pass information through a pipe, really, anything else is bound
to reach either a cmdline length limit, or force you to create a
temporary file (if done wrong we'll be seeing those security fixes due
to bad tmpfile handling in a few months).
--include points to a filename including the trace. You have also a
--kill <pid> command (not working yet) to get your application killed
by bug-buddy after the bug report.
I guess that getting a trace in python on mono is not as expensive as
the gdb thing, so there would not be a big delay after the crash and
the bug-buddy interface coming up. But if we have a big delay we could
use instead a named pipe to feed the trace over it, so the bindings
can call bug-buddy inmidiately and then getting/feeding the trace
while bug-buddy shows the progress bar.
What if bug-buddy accepted input from stdin with "--include -"? Then
the caller could use g_spawn_async_with_pipes().
Any security implications there?
--
Brent Smith <gnome nextreality net>
IRC: smitten
[
Date Prev][
Date Next] [
Thread Prev][
Thread Next]
[
Thread Index]
[
Date Index]
[
Author Index]