Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [RFCv2 PATCH 0/3] Salted build ids via linker sections | From | Laura Abbott <> | Date | Mon, 14 May 2018 13:51:52 -0700 |
| |
On 05/07/2018 07:49 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote: > On Sun, May 6, 2018 at 11:59 PM Masahiro Yamada < > yamada.masahiro@socionext.com> wrote: > >> 2018-03-30 21:40 GMT+09:00 Mark Wielaard <mjw@fedoraproject.org>: >>> On Thu, 2018-03-29 at 11:01 -0700, Laura Abbott wrote: >>>> I'm still mostly looking for feedback whether >>>> this would be acceptable for merging or if we should just persue a >>>> --build-id-salt in binutils. >>> >>> Personally I would go with this approach. It seems simple and it might >>> take years before a new linker option is available everywhere. > > >> Indeed. This series is easier than --build-id-salt. > >> If you do not see any better solution, I can accept this. > > >> BTW, when I read >> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/ParallelInstallableDebuginfo >> I thought "we could reverse the symlink direction from debug file to >> build-id file)" >> sensible (but I understand it is not easy to change this way). > > >> If two packages share an identical image, >> one package can borrow the image from the other, >> then the storage space will be saved. > >> So, having identical ID should be advantage, >> but we actually see only disadvantage... > > > > >>> To simplify things I think you could just always add the extra vdso >>> .comment initialized to something like KERNELRELEASE. Which distros >>> seem to update anyway to include their build number, so they wouldn't >>> need to do anything special to "update the build salt". >>> > > That's what I was thinking, too. Would that solve Fedora's problem? >
Yes, that seems reasonable.
| |