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.

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

process.executable.name shouldn't use /proc/[pid]/status #1736

Open
braydonk opened this issue Jan 10, 2025 · 0 comments · May be fixed by #1737
Open

process.executable.name shouldn't use /proc/[pid]/status #1736

braydonk opened this issue Jan 10, 2025 · 0 comments · May be fixed by #1737

Comments

@braydonk
Copy link
Contributor

Area(s)

area:process

Is your change request related to a problem? Please describe.

Today, the process.executable.name attribute has the following description:

The name of the process executable. On Linux based systems, can be set
to the `Name` in `proc/[pid]/status`. On Windows, can be set to the
base name of `GetProcessImageFileNameW`.

The Windows guidance in the description will provide an accurate result, but the Linux guidance is problematic. /proc/[pid]/status may not have the executable name under two circumstances:

  1. The executable name is longer than 15 characters (TASK_COMM_LEN-1) (man page)
  2. The process name is changed by the process using prctl(PR_SET_NAME,...) (man page)

Describe the solution you'd like

The current description for process.executable.name should instead be applied to a new attribute called process.name, and process.executable.name should have guidance adjusted so that it actually will represent the executable name.

Describe alternatives you've considered

No response

Additional context

Issue was first brought forward by @christos68k in the Semantic Conventions WG meeting on Jan 6, 2025. Further discussion took place in the #otel-system-metrics CNCF Slack channel.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

1 participant