Alan Maguire wrote on Mon, Jul 01, 2024 at 05:44:15PM +0100: > > - in theory, sure; this patch works. I say we can do this independantly > > of any other effort. The propere way of setting reproducible build in > > the kernel is not SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH but KBUILD_BUILD_TIMESTAMP and > > handling it at kernel makefile level is sound. > > Okay, so I propose we try and get the KBUILD_BUILD_TIMESTAMP-based > change upstream. I'll send that later today. That doesn't mean we can't > add the envvar-based method too, it just means we have something > upstream that handles reproducible builds more explicitly. Thanks. > > - in practice, (nixos hat) some modules won't set it but will only have > > SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH available, and there are trees that won't be updated > > for years (and that's being optimistic), so our local patch in pahole is > > here to stay for a while and the benefits far outweight the rebasing > > work. > > - (alpine hat) alpine doesn't seem to care as much about > > reproducibility (the nixos patch wasn't in and nobody complained so far), > > undecided at this point. Makefile.btf patch is probably good enough, but > > since I'm maintaining the patch anyway it's no extra work to add it > > there, undecided at this point. > > > > > > One thing I think would be worth doing in your patch would be adding > debug logging (if in verbose mode) that we are enabling reproducible > builds due to the presence of the SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH envvar. I don't > think we can do this in the non-debug case because build logs would just > be flooded with a few thousand of these messages for each module we add > BTF to using pahole. With that small addition I'd be happy with the > change. Can you send a v2 with that added? Thanks! That makes sense, I'll send a v2 with a debug log message tonight/tomorrow -- Dominique Martinet | Asmadeus
