RFC: releasing version 0.1
robert at ocallahan.org
Wed Sep 18 15:33:31 PDT 2013
On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 7:53 AM, Chris Jones <jones.chris.g at gmail.com>wrote:
> 1. Is it simple / common to hack gecko 27 with multiprocess disabled?
> 2. Given (1), what's the value of multiprocess support in rr for 0.1
> (i.e., the near future)?
1. On trunk multiprocess is used by default for generating Web page
thumbnails. Also, there's an increasing number of people doing e10s desktop
work --- who could really benefit from rr.
2. It would be quite valuable.
> Testing with Firefox 27.0a, an unfortunate issue (for rr; it's very
> fortunate for FF!) has arisen: some form of multi-process operation is
> enabled. (I think I remember hearing this was for tab previews or
> something?) This is a problem for two reasons. First, gecko
> multiprocessing requires |exec()|ing, but the configuration needed to
> install the seccomp-bpf explicitly disables |exec()|. Well, it's supposed
> to; exec() succeeds in my x86-64 VM, which is an apparent kernel bug I ran
> into before, that doesn't exist on x86. That all means that for FF 27
> running on Ubuntu 12.04
> 1. x86 build on x86-64 kernel: seccomp-bpf works for now, because of
> kernel bug
> 2. x86 build on x86 kernel: seccomp-bpf broken (need to verify, but
> 99.9% sure)
> 3. x86-64 build on x86-64: seccomp-bpf would be broken, if rr could
> record x86-64
Hmm, I did not know that.
"Filter programs may _only_ cross the execve(2) barrier if last filter
program was attached by a task with CAP_SYS_ADMIN capabilities in its
Does this mean we can work around the problem by giving rr CAP_SYS_ADMIN?
The second problem is debugging multiple processes. The rr core (should)
> work just fine with multiple processes, because rr doesn't have any concept
> of what those are. The problematic code is the gdb interface. It was
> designed assuming single-process debugging, for a variety of reasons,
> including the fact that gdb support for multiprocess has historically been
> poor. AFAICT, the 7.4 build in my VM doesn't support multiple processes in
> a way that's useful with rr. I'll try a bit of poking around though.
Would it be easy to provide a way to select which process gets debugged?
That would be more than enough for now, I think. But your followup seems to
suggest this would not be easy?
I think we can ditch this for 0.1 though.
Jtehsauts tshaei dS,o n" Wohfy Mdaon yhoaus eanuttehrotraiitny eovni
le atrhtohu gthot sf oirng iyvoeu rs ihnesa.r"t sS?o Whhei csha iids teoa
stiheer :p atroa lsyazye,d 'mYaonu,r "sGients uapr,e tfaokreg iyvoeunr,
'm aotr atnod sgaoy ,h o'mGee.t" uTph eann dt hwea lmka'n? gBoutt uIp
waanndt wyeonut thoo mken.o w *
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the rr-dev