On 10/16/2009 11:05 AM, Jan Kratochvil wrote:
On Fri, 16 Oct 2009 10:36:04 +0200, Jiri Moskovcak wrote:
> Or if we don't have debuginfo then we shouldn't even try to get bt?
I think ABRT should avoid using debuginfo even if it is installed as it may be
performance-costly for the client machine and the retrace server can take care
of it better incl. by its use of entries caching across reporting machines.
But I still miss:
* Facts why ABRT is still stepping around the use of external retrace server.
1. How would you imagine it to work for ordinary desktop users, should
they install their own private retrace server or send the cores
somewhere? (neither is possible)
* Decision if parameters and local variables should / should not be
(such as "bt vs. bt full", there are some changes of it in ABRT changelog)
- Possible security disclosure.
+ Better debuggability
(still not perfect, sometimes even a full core is not enough and one needs
a reproducer to be able to fix the bug).
(My current retrace client/server draft would need to be extended for it.)
I vote for dumping the variables, but we need to change the gui and make
it easier for user to see and remove sensitive data from the BT.