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

[Laura Abbott]

On 05/07/2018 07:49 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> 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?

Yes, that seems reasonable.