[PATCH] elf: add definition for FDO_PACKAGING_METADATA note

[Luca Boccassi]

On Mon, 2021-11-22 at 15:03 +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * luca boccassi:
> 
> > From: Luca Boccassi <bluca@debian.org>
> > 
> > As defined on: https://systemd.io/COREDUMP_PACKAGE_METADATA/
> > this note will be used starting from Fedora 36.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Luca Boccassi <bluca@debian.org>
> > ---
> > As requested by Mark on:
> > https://sourceware.org/pipermail/elfutils-devel/2021q4/004387.html
> > 
> >  elf/elf.h | 3 +++
> >  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
> > 
> > diff --git a/elf/elf.h b/elf/elf.h
> > index 50f87bac..4bb390b2 100644
> > --- a/elf/elf.h
> > +++ b/elf/elf.h
> > @@ -1302,6 +1302,9 @@ typedef struct
> >  /* Program property.  */
> >  #define NT_GNU_PROPERTY_TYPE_0 5
> >  
> > +/* Packaging metadata as defined on
> > https://systemd.io/COREDUMP_PACKAGE_METADATA/ */
> > +#define FDO_PACKAGING_METADATA 0xcafe1a7e
> 
> Given that this is in the "FDO" namespace, do we have to document this?

Hi,

This change was requested by the maintainer of elfutils (CC'ed):

https://sourceware.org/pipermail/elfutils-devel/2021q4/004387.html

I've sent a similar change for binutils' readelf:

https://sourceware.org/pipermail/binutils/2021-November/118584.html

We'll be using this ID through various projects, so IMHO it would be
useful to document it, yes.

> Do you have your own registry for this?

Sorry, what do you mean by registry here? A public header? If so, then
no we do not AFAIK.

-- 
Kind regards,
Luca Boccassi
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 488 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <https://sourceware.org/pipermail/libc-alpha/attachments/20211122/2f054e57/attachment.sig>