Re: Crash reports from GNOME bindings

[Brent Smith <gnome nextreality net>]

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