Hi Kees, > On Aug 15, 2024, at 9:05 AM, Kees Cook <kees@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > 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? I am looking through the commit log on kernel/kallsyms.c _just now_, and found you took most of recent patches for kallsyms. Could you please take this set as well? Thanks, Song
