[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAK7LNATTfjpkG0PLR5_anZOW5zfSZxKgFO6sHXuMf50OEtx0PQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 7 May 2018 15:28:49 +0900
From: Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@...ionext.com>
To: Laura Abbott <labbott@...hat.com>
Cc: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>, mjw@...oraproject.org,
"H . J . Lu" <hjl.tools@...il.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Nick Clifton <nickc@...hat.com>,
Cary Coutant <ccoutant@...il.com>,
Linux Kbuild mailing list <linux-kbuild@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFCv2 PATCH 0/3] Salted build ids via linker sections
2018-03-30 3:01 GMT+09:00 Laura Abbott <labbott@...hat.com>:
> Hi,
>
> This is v2 of my proposal to allow unique build-ids in the kernel. from
> last time:
>
> ""
> In Fedora, the debug information is packaged separately (foo-debuginfo) and
> can be installed separately. There's been a long standing issue where only one
> version of a debuginfo info package can be installed at a time. Mark Wielaard
> made an effort for Fedora 27 to allow parallel installation of debuginfo (see
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/ParallelInstallableDebuginfo for
> more details)
>
> Part of the requirement to allow this to work is that build ids are
> unique between builds. The existing upstream rpm implementation ensures
> this by re-calculating the build-id using the version and release as a
> seed. This doesn't work 100% for the kernel because of the vDSO which is
> its own binary and doesn't get updated. After poking holes in a few of my
> ideas, there was a discussion with some people from the binutils team about
> adding --build-id-salt to let ld do the calculation debugedit is doing. There
> was a counter proposal made about adding some extra information via a .comment
> which will affect the build id calculation but just get stripped out.
> ""
I think you already know '--build-id=uuid' linker option.
Doesn't this solve your problem?
The disadvantage of this option is,
we will lose reproducible building because --build-id=uuid
adds every time random salt.
The advantage is, the implementation is even simpler,
and easier to migrate to --build-id-salt once it is supported
in the future.
> This v2 cleans up the naming to be consistent and also switches to a
> config option vs. an environment variable. I've seen some sporadic
> failures about missing the generated header so I think I'm still missing
> a dependency somewhere.
Right.
There is no dependency between 'prepare' and 'scripts'
in the top Makefile.
Therefore, Kbuild can run them simultaneously,
which would cause a race in parallel building.
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.
>
> Thanks,
> Laura
>
>
> Laura Abbott (3):
> kbuild: Introduce build-salt generated header
> kbuild: Link with generated build-salt header
> x86/vdso: Add build salt to the vDSO
>
> Makefile | 13 +++++++++++--
> arch/x86/entry/vdso/vdso-layout.lds.S | 3 +++
> init/Kconfig | 8 ++++++++
> scripts/.gitignore | 1 +
> scripts/Makefile | 2 +-
> scripts/build-salt.lds.S | 5 +++++
> scripts/gensalt | 21 +++++++++++++++++++++
> scripts/link-vmlinux.sh | 3 ++-
> 8 files changed, 52 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> create mode 100644 scripts/build-salt.lds.S
> create mode 100755 scripts/gensalt
>
> --
> 2.16.2
>
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kbuild" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
--
Best Regards
Masahiro Yamada
Powered by blists - more mailing lists