>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). -- Randell Jesup, Mozilla Corp remove "news" for personal email _______________________________________________ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
