(Repost from https://abrt.github.io/, pardon any terrible formatting)
If you’ve ever experienced a crash in a Flatpak application, you might have noticed that there is no notification coming from ABRT for it, and maybe you even noticed some strange messages in the system journal:
abrt-server[…]: Unsupported container technology
The above appears when ABRT attempts to collect information about the container (currently only Docker and LXC), if the binary has been detected to have been run in one. For Flatpak applications, we probably get enough information already, so we can just special-case and do nothing instead.
Unfortunately, getting things like stack traces gets a bit more complicated than that.
For core dumps, I’ve experimented with a quick hack that reads mountinfo from the dump directory, creates a new user namespace, mounts the app and runtime directories, and, finally, generates a trace, which is workable enough to be used in a report, even without debug extensions installed. However, this is all until the user decides to update, which would likely invalidate the paths in mountinfo. For that, I should probably explore utilizing OSTree to check out the known commits first.
As for Python exceptions, things don’t really work at all. But, to put things in perspective, this is how it looks right now:
- A path configuration file is installed; it contains only an import line for the actual handler
- Python opens it during initialization, executes all lines that start with import, which, conveniently, causes our code to run and override sys.excepthook
It’s not even close to being elegant, and people are already arguing about removing support (or, rather, coming up with a better alternative) for such things: https://bugs.python.org/issue33944. To support such an implementation, we would likely need to provide a runtime extension, or ask anyone shipping Python to include our handler.
To make things worse, the handler communicates with ABRT using a UNIX socket, which would at the very least require all apps to have host access. A better way would probably be utilizing a D-Bus API, and that would require having a portal, so that, again, we don’t have to punch holes in the sandbox.
Finally, there are still a couple unanswered questions:
What about other kinds of problems? At the moment, I can only think of Java programs as being supported and possibly coming with their own set of challenges.
How do we handle this from the server side? Everything is built around traditional packaging, where components belong to a specific release of a specific operating system (distro). In the end, it could require some rearchitecting in FAF (now ABRT Analytics) and ABRT itself.