On Mon, Aug 12, 2024 at 06:13:22PM +0000, Song Liu wrote: > Hi Luis, > > > On Aug 12, 2024, at 9:57 AM, Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Mon, Aug 12, 2024 at 09:21:02AM -0700, Song Liu wrote: > >> Hi folks, > >> > >> Do we have more concerns and/or suggestions with this set? If not, > >> what would be the next step for it? > > > > I'm all for simplifying things, and this does just that, however, > > I'm not the one you need to convince, the folks who added the original > > hacks should provide their Reviewed-by / Tested-by not just for CONFIG_LTO_CLANG > > but also given this provides an alternative fix, don't we want to invert > > the order so we don't regress CONFIG_LTO_CLANG ? And shouldn't the patches > > also have their respective Fixes tag? > > kallsyms has got quite a few changes/improvements in the past few years: > > 1. Sami added logic to trim LTO hash in 2021 [1]; > 2. Zhen added logic to sort kallsyms in 2022 [2]; > 3. Yonghong changed cleanup_symbol_name() in 2023 [3]. > > In this set, we are undoing 1 and 3, but we keep 2. Shall we point Fixes > tag to [1] or [3]? The patch won't apply to a kernel with only [1] > (without [2] and [3]); while this set is not just fixing [3]. So I think > it is not accurate either way. OTOH, the combination of CONFIG_LTO_CLANG > and livepatching is probably not used by a lot of users, so I guess we > are OK without Fixes tags? I personally don't have a strong preference > either way. > > It is not necessary to invert the order of the two patches. Only applying > one of the two patches won't cause more issues than what we have today. Which tree should carry this series? -- Kees Cook
