From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.remote-ip=100.103.45.18 ARC-Seal: i=1; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc20261015; a=rsa-sha256; cv=none; t=1794594844; b=DOJDbLIjeKTZTGV+TlTzXZpYSHSO3asHBRnRYcjFYIoQ39cBWyaEE648KOzj/5uljGyK oxPbWJXcTNZJNI8i/+zeVFILizRTaucvqephQwesevO6HPbw4lVPE37fdP7/LiF18dIXJ u3k+isNviBsW9fxnbM7yfBTXVVZsCb/kiEjdHWq9/rUncCjIXX43HH7vECe6CYo0/gslv wxwiir6ABpExSa2QPA7ECAl7KquWPLDb4CfRzBMhqVW46OiruGdWoTS12gA+aK/bByqZH r8FTMpWr3rR16nYumV99aPTmZuAV/M85TCXT0TOMy6Gb/nKJgN1oEGZFZ3g6qibwO2A== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc20261015; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; t=1794594844; h=Received:DKIM-Signature:Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID: References:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; bh=oaQhh+OUaneKvMweWF8ZyU1MwloL7jZ9x7ji0DPo+Wk=; b=ttyBvps+2WENR7Ap/svmxmaRPnAM37VikmccmQ3DASLdKJw/77YoUgCL4fBOjDF/ehXL lAYAqZmkT0Arpl1SYOkqEes+tjhSbsZnlzpvXtCQicpfV5cGwHRdGzJaObJcLpVGkvTYY 6tH9VBmuI8hv95Cablg9dJIuXjfC3drqqzB0crmPHN8//8gUSxxI0kCF/WFYe3iMNI37y vtlA8JNilq08C22kMaJYrTVzUdbd7bH+q5tmitxgxyql3bihnI5RfnlIXJx/DZ10gLlvG 5Oy5IhzZ+yP1uivjHCOKMTGdj6KmAax/DNx8NLtPz8H1xDDgS31PrrgJv26bz+nTNQQ== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=k20260515 header.b=ZZ1086Fz; arc=none smtp.remote-ip=100.103.45.18 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (quasi.space.kernel.org [100.103.45.18]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (prime256v1)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B7019606A327; Fri, 13 Nov 2026 18:34:04 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=k20260515 header.b=ZZ1086Fz Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 495A91F000C4; Fri, 13 Nov 2026 18:34:03 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=kernel.org; s=k20260515; t=1794594844; bh=oaQhh+OUaneKvMweWF8ZyU1MwloL7jZ9x7ji0DPo+Wk=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To; b=ZZ1086FzH91iVXWyrIQAbmA+4VKgd6hgeP9KgDIq7htPi8caWMneXeYCkHLDQvad0 80nHSaspgyKpRo3U9nAUKlcSOj/lKSebNswKERvqronWsKpZrm5p97IVcgjwlrpAHS CCjZzeH9P9aLLLYphv/mOffu0Gs/k2IZEcNNMiOGEOiPH1l0Zp7vMAqcM0iSeVKDym ioml1YtyaWhwZSmSxXICwOW6lvcEzmv3UtHuyMbQRiSOm2c+PBgbHCuHcSV4lSbQC5 fv2phVOLaUTmYQQsFQ0rfbIvD6q51ruFBoNBkJD2fOV8kYm7ImqcOUaWjtAi4h9B4w 14mL7QvN3GjKQ== Date: Fri, 13 Nov 2026 10:34:01 -0800 From: Josh Poimboeuf To: Longjun Luo Cc: peterz@infradead.org, mbenes@suse.cz, pmladek@suse.com, joe.lawrence@redhat.com, song@kernel.org, puranjay@kernel.org, nathan@kernel.org, ndesaulniers@google.com, morbo@google.com, justinstitt@google.com, live-patching@vger.kernel.org, llvm@lists.linux.dev, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 00/11] objtool/klp: DWARF-based cross-build symbol correlation Message-ID: References: <20261104133158.3187525-1-luolongjuna@gmail.com> X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: List-Owner: Precedence: list MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: On Fri, Nov 13, 2026 at 11:58:31AM +0800, Longjun Luo wrote: > I understand the concern about readability. Since English is not my > native language, I drafted the content myself and used AI to help with > the English writing before reviewing and sending it out. I'll keep the > information density in mind going forward. > > Just to clarify the background: this design comes from my practical work > on userspace livepatch, and v1/v2 were meant to present the two > layers of that design as a whole. While dealing with LTO in practice, I > ran into many recurring correlation issues, so I tried to abstract and > model the problem systematically rather than hunting for corner cases, > and I brought that modeling process into this review. > > As noted in the RFC, this patchset is intended to validate the > feasibility of the approach. I wanted feedback on the overall design > before deciding whether to take it further. > > Thanks for taking the time to review and share your thoughts. Thanks, that makes sense, but for upstreaming I think we will need to take a more iterative approach, even if it ends up causing some intermediate patches to be obsoleted by later ones. -- Josh