Re: Kernel ABI Monitoring and toolchain support

[Dodji Seketeli <dodji@seketeli.org>]

Hey,

Matthias Männich <maennich@google.com> a écrit:

> That is a very late response, sorry about that.

No problem Matthias :-)

I totally forgot about this thread to begin with, so thank you for
reviving it.

> In the Android MC we will have a talk about the latest news monitoring
> Android Kernel ABIs already, but I definitely see value in a more
> generic session in the Kernel+Toolchain MC. Is that schedule already
> finalized or is there still a slot available and interest from your
> side?
>
> In particular, I would be interested in discussing ways to standardize
> ABI and type information in a way that it can be embedded into
> binaries in a less ambiguous way. In other words, what can we do to
> not rely entirely on intermediate formats like CTF or DWARF to make
> sense of an ABI? Maybe CTF is already a good starting point, yet some
> additions are needed (e.g. other language features like for C++)?

Do you have something in particular in mind, Matthias?  I am very
curious about this.  I know the idea is to discuss this at the
conference, but a little bit of a teaser would be awesome, I guess ;-)

Cheers,

>
> Cheers,
> Matthias
>
>
> On Sat, May 7, 2022 at 3:15 AM Guillermo E. Martinez
> <guillermo.e.martinez@oracle.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hello guys,
>>
>> On our side we are working on:
>>
>>   * Gives the support  to extract the ABI for Linux kernel image
>>   and Linux  kernel modules using the CFT backed in with
>>   libabigail tools.
>>   * Add support to compare packages with CTF debug format by using
>>   abipkgdiff and other related libabigail tools.
>>
>>    * https://sourceware.org/pipermail/libabigail/2022q2/004340.html
>>    * https://sourceware.org/pipermail/libabigail/2022q2/004345.html
>>
>> If you think that it could be a point to talk as part of your MC,  I can for sure
>> provides more details about it.
>>
>> Thanks for your comments,
>> Guillermo
>>
>> On Wednesday, April 20, 2022 12:34:59 PM CDT Giuliano Procida wrote:
>> > Sorry for the late reply, I've been on leave and Mattias is still on leave.
>> >
>> > That sounds quite interesting.
>> >
>> > Matthias and I could certainly talk about what we've been busy with and
>> > what are the main pain points for Android (not just the kernel).
>> >
>> > On what more would we like from the toolchain... it falls into at least two
>> > buckets:
>> >
>> > 1. make the possible easier - stricter conformance to DWARF standards, full
>> > DWARF 5 support, getting things like ARM64 ABI extensions (e.g., for
>> > HWASAN) into things like elfutils at the same time as the compile-link
>> > toolchain, more consistency between Clang and GCC debug info for the same
>> > sources, the same for Clang and Clang with full LTO
>> > 2. make the impossible possible - extending ABI monitoring coverage beyond
>> > just architecture, symbols and types / dealing with header constants,
>> > macros and more
>> >
>> > Giuliano.
>> >
>> >
>> > On Wed, 20 Apr 2022 at 17:02, Jose E. Marchesi <jose.marchesi@oracle.com>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> > >
>> > > [Adding Dodji Seketeli, libabigail maintainer,
>> > >  and Guillermo Martinez, who works in the CTF support for libabigail
>> > >  including kernel support.]
>> > >
>> > > > Hi Matthias and Giuliano,
>> > > > Jose and I are currently in the planning process to put together a
>> > > > Kernel+Toolchain microconference track at Linux Plumbers Conference
>> > > > this year (Sept 12-14) in Dublin, Ireland.
>> > > >
>> > > > Would you all be interested in a leading session on Kernel ABI
>> > > > Monitoring and perhaps what toolchain vendors can do to help, as part
>> > > > of our MC (which itself is currently still in planning phase).
>> > >
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>>

-- 
		Dodji