On Tue, Feb 05, 2019 at 06:36:48AM +0530, Prasanna V. Loganathar wrote: > Hi Stephane, > > Thanks for the reply. Please correct me if I'm wrong. > > lxc launch ubuntu:18:04 testbox > lxc exec testbox bash > sleep 100 & kill -ABRT $(pgrep sleep)
stgraber@castiana:~$ lxc launch ubuntu:18.04 testbox Creating testbox Starting testbox stgraber@castiana:~$ lxc exec testbox bash root@testbox:~# sleep 10 & [1] 303 root@testbox:~# kill -ABRT 303 root@testbox:~# [1]+ Aborted (core dumped) sleep 10 root@testbox:~# ls -lh /var/crash total 512 -rw-r----- 1 root root 34K Feb 5 17:02 _bin_sleep.0.crash root@testbox:~# > There's no crash dump anywhere. > > /var/crash is empty. No `core` file, etc. The default is > crashes just vaporises itself - that's my biggest concern. While, for > instance on a debian - you can rely on a 'core' file, or on > CentOS/RHEL, you can always rely on a systemd-coredump infrastructure, > and addressed so nicely by the coredumpctl command. > > With systemd being the init, and coredumpctl being very well > architectured to manage this, I just don't see why Ubuntu shouldn't > make use of that and have apport only do what it does best - which is > primarily reporting. > > > > On Tue, Feb 5, 2019 at 1:57 AM Stéphane Graber <stgra...@ubuntu.com> wrote: > > > > On Sat, Feb 02, 2019 at 03:34:22AM +0530, Prasanna V. Loganathar wrote: > > > Hi folks, > > > > > > Currently, `$ sysctl kernel.core_pattern` gives > > > `kernel.core_pattern = |/usr/share/apport/apport %p %s %c %d %P` > > > > > > This is usually fine, however, when run from containers or lxc this > > > will just error out, with no core dump being produced, due to it being > > > disabled. Adding to the problem: with container or lxc, you can't just > > > change it per container, and should be changed on the host. And it's > > > not reasonable to expect apport in all containers either. Since, this > > > is a common problem, I think it's important to consider a change in > > > the default handling. > > > > > > There are multiple options to deal with this: > > > > > > 1. Drop apport as default core_pattern handler and switch to a simple > > > file in either /var/crash (this requires creating /var/crash as a part > > > of the installation as it's currently created by apport), or /tmp and > > > let apport handle the core dump after the fact, and report it. > > > > > > 2. Switch to systemd-coredump, and default to it, since it already > > > does this very well and provides "coredumpctl" which is much nicer to > > > work with. systemd-coredump also is a part of the systemd suite of > > > utils and doesn't pull in a larger dependency as apport -- which to > > > date, isn't as robust (I still have "core" files being left all over > > > the place due to the fact that apport reset's itself and crashes > > > during startup aren't handled properly). This also has a nice > > > advantage of unifying the OSS community in terms of coredump handler. > > > apport can handle things from the core dumps that systemd generates, > > > further on desktops. > > > > > > 3. Employ a tiny helper script, as the default core dump handler, > > > which looks for specified programs such as "apport", "abrt", > > > systemd-coredump" and pipes to them, or pipes it to /var/crash, or > > > /tmp during it's absence. This does have the disadvantage of growing > > > with it's own config, rather quickly. > > > > > > That being said, I highly suggest option 2 be used in the upcoming > > > versions, and apport be a layer sitting on top of the coredumps > > > generated by systemd-coredumps by either hooking into it, or by > > > watching it's folders. > > > > > > I've also filed this as a bug here: > > > https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+bug/1813403 > > > > Are you aware that apport is aware of containers (LXC & LXD) and will > > just forward your crash to apport inside the container? > > > > That actually tends to be a better way to handle things that > > centralizing all crashes on the host as monitoring tools running inside > > the containers will operate as normal, reporting on the presence of a > > crash file, as well, sending the bug report to Launchpad will then work > > properly, capturing the details from the container rather than > > confusingly mixing package details of the host with a crash that may > > have come from a completely different release. > > > > There's obviously nothing wrong with someone opting out of apport and > > switching to whatever core dump handler they want, but for Ubuntu, > > apport has much better integration with the distribution, has hooks in > > many packages and was designed with proper container support. > > > > -- > > Stéphane Graber > > Ubuntu developer > > http://www.ubuntu.com -- Stéphane Graber Ubuntu developer http://www.ubuntu.com
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
-- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
