Re: [RFCv2 PATCH 0/3] Salted build ids via linker sections

[Andy Lutomirski]

On Sun, May 6, 2018 at 11:59 PM Masahiro Yamada <
yamada.masahiro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> 2018-03-30 21:40 GMT+09:00 Mark Wielaard <mjw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
> > 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?