162548 2016-09-26 01:10:29 -0700 [GTK] Require implementation of cpuDescriptionForUAString 2016-09-28 03:36:29 -0700 1 1 1 Unclassified WebKit WebKitGTK WebKit Nightly Build PC Linux RESOLVED WONTFIX P2 Normal --- 142074 1 mcatanzaro mcatanzaro berto bugs-noreply cgarcia clopez mcatanzaro tpopela zan oldest_to_newest 1233335 0 mcatanzaro 2016-09-26 01:10:29 -0700 Require implementation of cpuDescriptionForUAString. Less-popular architectures would probably prefer to get a nice build error here than to wind up with a broken user agent. 1233336 1 289809 mcatanzaro 2016-09-26 01:12:18 -0700 Created attachment 289809 Patch 1233338 2 cgarcia 2016-09-26 01:15:37 -0700 Is this ok for distros like debian that build on different platforms? 1233366 3 clopez 2016-09-26 04:45:48 -0700 (In reply to comment #0) > Require implementation of cpuDescriptionForUAString. Less-popular > architectures would probably prefer to get a nice build error here than to > wind up with a broken user agent. Why is having the CPU architecture relevant for a webpage to work or not? Why we don't just return "Intel" instead of "unknown" or causing an unneeded build failure? 1233481 4 mcatanzaro 2016-09-26 11:32:23 -0700 (In reply to comment #2) > Is this ok for distros like debian that build on different platforms? I suggest we simply accept patches to add more conditionals here from people working on alternative architectures. If we know how to test for them (I don't) then we could do that now instead of waiting for patches to roll in. (In reply to comment #3) > Why we don't just return "Intel" instead of "unknown" or causing an unneeded > build failure? I guess we could, but is it really so hard to implement one function when using WebKit on a brand new architecture? This seems quite easy relative to other arch-enablement that might be required. 1233793 5 clopez 2016-09-27 03:15:43 -0700 (In reply to comment #4) > (In reply to comment #2) > > Is this ok for distros like debian that build on different platforms? > > I suggest we simply accept patches to add more conditionals here from people > working on alternative architectures. If we know how to test for them (I > don't) then we could do that now instead of waiting for patches to roll in. > > (In reply to comment #3) > > Why we don't just return "Intel" instead of "unknown" or causing an unneeded > > build failure? > > I guess we could, but is it really so hard to implement one function when > using WebKit on a brand new architecture? This seems quite easy relative to > other arch-enablement that might be required. The thing is that returning "RISC-V" or "MIPS" is as bad as returning "Unknown". If the goal is to have sites working on this architectures as best as possible we should just return "Intel" always, because is what sites expect to find. I don't think a site can have architecture-specific html/css/javascript. So just return Intel instead of Unknown. UA parsing is broken, so we can't do much about this than returning the more common possible UA string. 1233818 6 mcatanzaro 2016-09-27 05:10:40 -0700 Yeah OK. I wonder if we should do this for ARM too. In Endless we've found that various sites send mobile versions if ARM is in the UA, which is terrible. 1233846 7 clopez 2016-09-27 07:08:55 -0700 (In reply to comment #6) > Yeah OK. > > I wonder if we should do this for ARM too. In Endless we've found that > various sites send mobile versions if ARM is in the UA, which is terrible. Yes, i think so. Returning "Intel" always without giving further details about the machine CPU architecture looks like a good idea to me. 1234320 8 zan 2016-09-28 03:36:29 -0700 (In reply to comment #7) > (In reply to comment #6) > > Yeah OK. > > > > I wonder if we should do this for ARM too. In Endless we've found that > > various sites send mobile versions if ARM is in the UA, which is terrible. > > Yes, i think so. Returning "Intel" always without giving further details > about the machine CPU architecture looks like a good idea to me. IMO this also helps with improving fingerprinting avoidance. 289809 2016-09-26 01:12:18 -0700 2016-09-27 05:10:44 -0700 Patch bug-162548-20160926100921.patch text/plain 1439 mcatanzaro U3VidmVyc2lvbiBSZXZpc2lvbjogMjA2MzYyCmRpZmYgLS1naXQgYS9Tb3VyY2UvV2ViQ29yZS9D aGFuZ2VMb2cgYi9Tb3VyY2UvV2ViQ29yZS9DaGFuZ2VMb2cKaW5kZXggZTIyMDc5YzI3Y2YyMzQw ZWQxOTMyNGUwMmNlZTY0MDU0ODcxYzhmNS4uZWIyNDc0YTJlYjBkNjUwYjhlYzdiYzFmMDgwZTA5 YzVlMWVmYWM5NSAxMDA2NDQKLS0tIGEvU291cmNlL1dlYkNvcmUvQ2hhbmdlTG9nCisrKyBiL1Nv dXJjZS9XZWJDb3JlL0NoYW5nZUxvZwpAQCAtMSwzICsxLDE2IEBACisyMDE2LTA5LTI2ICBNaWNo YWVsIENhdGFuemFybyAgPG1jYXRhbnphcm9AaWdhbGlhLmNvbT4KKworICAgICAgICBbR1RLXSBS ZXF1aXJlIGltcGxlbWVudGF0aW9uIG9mIGNwdURlc2NyaXB0aW9uRm9yVUFTdHJpbmcKKyAgICAg ICAgaHR0cHM6Ly9idWdzLndlYmtpdC5vcmcvc2hvd19idWcuY2dpP2lkPTE2MjU0OAorCisgICAg ICAgIFJldmlld2VkIGJ5IE5PQk9EWSAoT09QUyEpLgorCisgICAgICAgIFJlcXVpcmUgaW1wbGVt ZW50YXRpb24gb2YgY3B1RGVzY3JpcHRpb25Gb3JVQVN0cmluZy4gTGVzcy1wb3B1bGFyIGFyY2hp dGVjdHVyZXMgd291bGQKKyAgICAgICAgcHJvYmFibHkgcHJlZmVyIHRvIGdldCBhIG5pY2UgYnVp bGQgZXJyb3IgaGVyZSB0aGFuIHRvIHdpbmQgdXAgd2l0aCBhIGJyb2tlbiB1c2VyIGFnZW50Lgor CisgICAgICAgICogcGxhdGZvcm0vZ3RrL1VzZXJBZ2VudEd0ay5jcHA6CisgICAgICAgIChXZWJD b3JlOjpjcHVEZXNjcmlwdGlvbkZvclVBU3RyaW5nKToKKwogMjAxNi0wOS0yNSAgQW50dGkgS29p dmlzdG8gIDxhbnR0aUBhcHBsZS5jb20+CiAKICAgICAgICAgQXV0aG9yU3R5bGVTaGVldHMgc2hv dWxkbid0IHRyaWdnZXIgc3luY2hyb25vdXMgc3R5bGUgcmVzb2x1dGlvbnMKZGlmZiAtLWdpdCBh L1NvdXJjZS9XZWJDb3JlL3BsYXRmb3JtL2d0ay9Vc2VyQWdlbnRHdGsuY3BwIGIvU291cmNlL1dl YkNvcmUvcGxhdGZvcm0vZ3RrL1VzZXJBZ2VudEd0ay5jcHAKaW5kZXggMDY4NWZjNTY2YTBmYWRk M2YyNmE4ZDM5ODZhYWQ1ZTMwMDQ2YjNlMi4uZTBhMjQxYTg3NjEwMGUwYzllNWUyNmJiMWI3YzQx OWNjOTUxMTZjMiAxMDA2NDQKLS0tIGEvU291cmNlL1dlYkNvcmUvcGxhdGZvcm0vZ3RrL1VzZXJB Z2VudEd0ay5jcHAKKysrIGIvU291cmNlL1dlYkNvcmUvcGxhdGZvcm0vZ3RrL1VzZXJBZ2VudEd0 ay5jcHAKQEAgLTc4LDcgKzc4LDcgQEAgc3RhdGljIGNvbnN0IGNoYXIqIGNwdURlc2NyaXB0aW9u Rm9yVUFTdHJpbmcoKQogI2VsaWYgQ1BVKEFSTSkgfHwgQ1BVKEFSTTY0KQogICAgIHJldHVybiAi QVJNIjsKICNlbHNlCi0gICAgcmV0dXJuICJVbmtub3duIjsKKyNlcnJvciBUaGlzIHBsYXRmb3Jt IHJlcXVpcmVzIGFuIGltcGxlbWVudGF0aW9uIG9mIGNwdURlc2NyaXB0aW9uRm9yVUFTdHJpbmcu CiAjZW5kaWYKIH0KIAo=