Messages in this thread | | | From | Andy Lutomirski <> | Date | Tue, 08 May 2018 02:49:50 +0000 | Subject | Re: [RFCv2 PATCH 0/3] Salted build ids via linker sections |
| |
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?
| |