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

[Laura Abbott <labbott@redhat.com>]

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.