linux-kernel - Re: [patch 024/144] allow /proc/config.gz to be built as a module

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Sun, 1 Oct 2006 09:39:54 -0700
From:	Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...otime.net>
To:	akpm@...l.org, lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Cc:	torvalds@...l.org, rossb@...gle.com, akpm@...gle.com,
	sam@...nborg.org
Subject: Re: [patch 024/144] allow /proc/config.gz to be built as a module

On Sat, 30 Sep 2006 23:27:25 -0700 akpm@...l.org wrote:

> From: Ross Biro <rossb@...gle.com>
> 
> The driver for /proc/config.gz consumes rather a lot of memory and it is in
> fact possible to build it as a module.
> 
> In some ways this is a bit risky, because the .config which is used for
> compiling kernel/configs.c isn't necessarily the same as the .config which was
> used to build vmlinux.
> 
> But OTOH the potential memory savings are decent, and it'd be fairly dumb to
> build your configs.o with a different .config.

so after getting several disagreements on this, you are going ahead
with it.  I'm disappointed, but I agree that you have a right to
do so.  (IOW, I wouldn't be disappointed if some other patches
were merged even though someone disapproved of them :)

And the memory savings are not a big deal.  You even mentioned that
you had it confused with /proc/kallsyms.

---
~Randy
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/