Thanks for checking further.
On 02/04/2023 07.31, Daniel Richard G. wrote:
│┄ Format-specific differences are supported for ELF binaries but no
file-specific differences were detected; falling back to a binary diff. file(1)
reports: ELF 64-bit LSB relocatable, x86-64, version 1 (SYSV),
BuildID[sha1]=5ed23a6ee7417643717766d7b5307da88409fe5a, not stripped
│┄ File has been modified after NT_GNU_BUILD_ID has been applied.
We should probably file a bug against diffoscope to make it aware of
this file "modification"
│ @@ -55695,29 +55695,29 @@
│ 000d98e0: 0000 0000 0000 0000 3082 0199 0609 2a86 ........0.....*.
│ 000d98f0: 4886 f70d 0107 02a0 8201 8a30 8201 8602 H..........0....
│ 000d9900: 0101 310d 300b 0609 6086 4801 6503 0402 ..1.0...`.H.e...
│ 000d9910: 0130 0b06 092a 8648 86f7 0d01 0701 3182 .0...*.H......1.
│ 000d9920: 0163 3082 015f 0201 0130 3a30 2231 2030 .c0.._...0:0"1 0
│ 000d9930: 1e06 0355 0403 0c17 444b 4d53 206d 6f64 ...U....DKMS mod
│ 000d9940: 756c 6520 7369 676e 696e 6720 6b65 7902 ule signing key.
...
│ 000d9a90: 9d7e 4d6f 6475 6c65 2073 6967 6e61 7475 .~Module signatu
│ 000d9aa0: 7265 2061 7070 656e 6465 647e 0a re appended~.
Is a unique signature being added to the modules? I noticed that
/var/lib/dkms/mok.{key,pub} differ between the two systems.
That's probably the reason. Not sure if something could/should be done
about that difference. We should probably take this to the reproducible
builds people https://wiki.debian.org/ReproducibleBuilds ...
(No secure-boot configuration has been performed on these systems;
everything was debootstrap'ed and installed from scratch in chroots)
Andreas
