Replace the address with the adjusted address (and provide the raw address?)
Categories
(Socorro :: Processor, enhancement)
Tracking
(Not tracked)
People
(Reporter: gsvelto, Unassigned)
References
Details
The stackwalker has been wired up to detect scenarios where the crashing address is different from what is reported by the exception handler, either because it wasn't reported or because it was adjusted before access. In those cases the stackwalker adds a field to the crash_info
structure called adjusted_address
. When this field is present the crash address shown by Socorro should be adjusted like so:
- If
crash_info.adjusted_address.kind
is the"non-canonical"
string thencrash_info.adjusted_address.address
should be used instead ofcrash_info.address
- If
crash_info.adjusted_address.kind
is the"null-pointer"
string then the null pointer should be used instead ofcrash_info.address
(that is0x00000000
on 32-bit builds and0x0000000000000000
on 64-bit ones).
For extra clarity towards however is analyzing the crash an additional field should be added to the crash report holding the address that was replaced (we could call it raw_address
, exception_address
or something along the lines).
Comment 1•2 years ago
|
||
This bug covers what gets shown in the report view for a crash report in Crash Stats. I'm pretty sure we need to update the stackwalker before working on this.
Reporter | ||
Comment 2•2 years ago
|
||
Yes, I've cut a new release for this. Should I file a separate bug to pick up the new release? There's a few changes to the output but they boil down to new fields we added, none of the old JSON fields were changed.
Comment 3•2 years ago
|
||
We had agreed that I wouldn't be updating the stackwalker until you asked me to which reduces the maintenance burden on me and makes it easier for us to coordinate on the state of the stackwalker vs. what's running in the Socorro processor. I'll write up a bug for this update. Going forward, you can either write up a bug or let me know.
Reporter | ||
Comment 4•2 years ago
|
||
Thanks!
Comment 5•2 years ago
|
||
Oops--looks like we had two of these bugs. I'm going to dupe this to the one with the work in it.
Description
•