Discussion on Implementing Opt-Out Mechanism for NSFileSystemSize

[GLinnik21]

In reference to PR #457, where we addressed the declaration requirement for NSFileSystemSize as NSPrivacyAccessedAPICategoryDiskSpace, it falls under 7D9E.1 as we send this information off the device in crash reports. Apple mandates that this part of the crash report should be optional and requires user approval for the usage of disk space information.

To comply with Apple's guidelines and avoid potential issues, we should consider implementing an opt-out mechanism for it. However, enforcing an opt-in UI for crash reporting might not be the best approach for our library users. Therefore, creating a module seems more appropriate.

Proposed Solutions

1. Automatic Injection:

• Utilize +load or __attribute__((constructor)) to automatically inject a "monitor" that supplements crash reports with disk size information.

2. Public API for Injection:

• Provide a public API and require users to inject the necessary functionality themselves.

3. Remove NSFileSystemSize Code:

• Consider removing the NSFileSystemSize code. It may not be crucial enough to justify the effort required to implement these systems.

[GLinnik21]

@naftaly, from your perspective, does it worth it?

[naftaly]

@naftaly, from your perspective, does it worth it?

I see two distinct things here.

1- Splitting the disk info monitor out so it can be opt in/out by users of KSCrash.
2- Having a good reason to use the data in the first place.

For #1, I think your options enumerated above seem fine. Or maybe we can add a “privacy manifest” group of monitors. KSCrash isn’t a UI package so adding UI isn’t really an option. In any case, that’s up to the user of the SDK and I don’t think we want to get involved in all the tasks adding UI creates.

#2. I’m not sure if we currently use the data in any way other than extra data in the crash reports. One thing that’s interesting is that having this extra data, even if it’s on device only is super helpful. It can help in understanding terminations. For example, on startup, just like when we look for an OOM, we can also add more heuristics and look at the disk space left from the previous sessions. If it’s somewhere in the <= 150MB range, we can expect the app likely was terminated due to lacking disk space to run.

So, what I’d do. Add a monitor for disk related data. Add that monitor to a privacy manifest monitor group and document why it’s there. At that point we’ve done our due diligence and compiled with Apple rules, it’ll now be up to SDK users to make their apps comply.

I think it’s worth it.

[bamx23]

I think we should go with option 2. More specifically, I think we should expose the moniotr API as part of KSCrash public API. This way we can allow users writing custom crash report enrichment plugins which I think good thing to have in general.

And in the context of this task, an additional product(SPM) / subspec(CocoaPods) can be created that will have its own privacy manifest and this extra monitor. And it will be up to a developer to include this library to the app to opt-in to the disk space monitoring.

I think implementing opt-out in this case might be really tricky as we don't want this API to be compiled into the app binary and not just "unused". So I would rather go with the opt-in way.

I know that such refactoruing might not be that easy, but I believe that it should make the lib API even more clean.

[GLinnik21]

Maybe we should move this "public" monitor API to a "private" module, like KSCrashRecordingCore, to not expose this API to a regular user? And this "PrivacyModule" would depend on KSCrashRecordingCore.
Here is the basic idea of the current structure for the reference.

[bamx23]

Having this in the "extended" API like KSCrashRecordingCore target makes sense to me. Currently monitors are part of private API (except of Monitor Type). If we keep type-to-monitor-api mapping in the KSCrashRecording while moving the implementations to KSCrashRecordingCore, it should work. I like the idea.

[GLinnik21]

We also have a "tricky" bootTime API.
Should we make a module for each privacy related API or just one?
Should there be separate KSCrashMonitorType or just one KSCrashMonitorTypePrivacy?
Also, should the KSCrashRecording module "know" about any monitor that it doesn't explicitly depend on?

[bamx23]

Should we make a module for each privacy related API or just one?
Should there be separate KSCrashMonitorType or just one KSCrashMonitorTypePrivacy?

We have 2 now: disk space and boot time, right? Let's have 2 monitors in 2 separate modules. I don't think there's going to be too many of such privacy-sensitive monitors and we can easily maintain 2-3 extra modules like this.

Also, should the KSCrashRecording module "know" about any monitor that it doesn't explicitly depend on?

Ideally no. KSCrashRecording should only know about the monitor API in KSCrashRecordingCore. The existing monitors can remain in KSCrashRecording, by the way, I don't see any reason to move them to core (only the monitor API). The tricky part is how to allow adding extra monitors (considering that installation is managed by KSCrashRecording).

We might have a special case for supporting these 2 new monitors in the monitor types and log an error/warning if the implementation is not "registered" (e.g. in KSCrashRecording we can have a functuion that registers such injections and a function in each new module that a developer needs to call before install).

[naftaly]

… we can have a functuion that registers such injections and a function in each new module that a developer needs to call before install).

Less related to this discussion, but maybe we can consider simplifying the startup for the user while whe’re at it. I’ve found it a bit confusing in what order things need to be called. I’d like to see a config object, and then we simply pass that to install.

// create a config
var config = CrashConfuration(<options…>)
/// … add config options …

// install it. That’s it.
Crash.shared.install(configuration: config)