Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom

[Call Stacks In Crash Reports] Redaction Levels #945

Open
issackjohn opened this issue Jan 27, 2025 · 2 comments · May be fixed by #979
Open

[Call Stacks In Crash Reports] Redaction Levels #945

issackjohn opened this issue Jan 27, 2025 · 2 comments · May be fixed by #979
Assignees
@issackjohn
Labels
Call Stacks In Crash Reports

Comments

@issackjohn
Copy link
Contributor

issackjohn commented Jan 27, 2025 •
edited
Loading

We need to discuss the appropriate level of redaction for extension frames in call stacks.

There are three potential options to consider:

  • Full redaction
  • Per-frame redaction
  • No redaction for the main world

Discussion Points:

  • Is full redaction necessary, or can we consider per-frame redaction?
  • Should there be no redaction for the main world?

There was a rough consensus in the WebPerfWG that extension content was acceptable if it appeared in a place (main world) where it could be on the stack.
@issackjohn
Copy link
Contributor Author

issackjohn commented Jan 27, 2025 •
edited
Loading

Must be a permissions issue but I can't add appropriate labels to the issue

@issackjohn issackjohn mentioned this issue Jan 27, 2025
Merged
@aluhrs13
Copy link
Contributor

It seems like per-frame redaction is the best path. That gives signal that there is a problem occurring that interacts with an extension, without exposing what or how.

Lack of a stack entirely feels like it could lead to a lot of issues in trying to interpret what's happening - Were we unable to get a stack? Did the page's processing pipeline drop the stack? Only redact the relevant frames gives something for the site owner to aggregate one instead of having a large "blank" bucket.

aarongable pushed a commit to chromium/chromium that referenced this issue Feb 26, 2025
@issackjohn
Omit stacks with extension frames
c289f09 
This change updates the JavaScript call stack collection logic so that
if any frame of the to be reported stack trace originates from a
Chrome extension content script, the entire stack is replaced with a
message indicating its omission.

Proceeding with full redaction while we discuss potential redaction
levels at MicrosoftEdge/MSEdgeExplainers#945

Bug: 40268201
Change-Id: I0925f608c83d74414990bcfe6ce7af6fe37a3ffe
Reviewed-on: https://chromium-review.googlesource.com/c/chromium/src/+/6203432
Commit-Queue: Issack John <issackjohn@microsoft.com>
Reviewed-by: David Bertoni <dbertoni@chromium.org>
Reviewed-by: Seth Brenith <seth.brenith@microsoft.com>
Reviewed-by: Dmitry Gozman <dgozman@chromium.org>
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/main@{#1425237}
@issackjohn issackjohn linked a pull request Mar 10, 2025 that will close this issue
Draft
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Assignees

@issackjohn issackjohn

Labels
Call Stacks In Crash Reports
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

[Call Stacks In Crash Reports] Per-frame redaction issackjohn/MSEdgeExplainers
3 participants
@aluhrs13 @ngaitonde @issackjohn