linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 0/4] Add support for LZ4-compressed kernels

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

Date:	Tue, 29 Jan 2013 19:36:03 -0800
From:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To:	Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@....linux.org.uk>
CC:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Kyungsik Lee <kyungsik.lee@....com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Michal Marek <mmarek@...e.cz>,
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kbuild@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org,
	Nitin Gupta <nitingupta910@...il.com>,
	Richard Purdie <rpurdie@...nedhand.com>,
	Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>,
	Joe Millenbach <jmillenbach@...il.com>,
	Albin Tonnerre <albin.tonnerre@...e-electrons.com>,
	hyojun.im@....com, chan.jeong@....com, gunho.lee@....com,
	minchan.kim@....com, namhyung.kim@....com,
	raphael.andy.lee@...il.com,
	CE Linux Developers List <celinux-dev@...ts.celinuxforum.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/4] Add support for LZ4-compressed kernels

On 01/29/2013 02:15 AM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 02:25:10PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
>> What's this "with enabled unaligned memory access" thing?  You mean "if
>> the arch supports CONFIG_HAVE_EFFICIENT_UNALIGNED_ACCESS"?  If so,
>> that's only x86, which isn't really in the target market for this
>> patch, yes?
>>
>> It's a lot of code for a 50ms boot-time improvement.  Does anyone have
>> any opinions on whether or not the benefits are worth the cost?
>
> Well... when I saw this my immediate reaction was "oh no, yet another
> decompressor for the kernel".  We have five of these things already.
> Do we really need a sixth?
>
> My feeling is that we should have:
> - one decompressor which is the fastest
> - one decompressor for the highest compression ratio
> - one popular decompressor (eg conventional gzip)
>
> And if we have a replacement one for one of these, then it should do
> exactly that: replace it.  I realise that various architectures will
> behave differently, so we should really be looking at numbers across
> several arches.
>
> Otherwise, where do we stop adding new ones?  After we have 6 of these
> (which is after this one).  After 12?  After the 20th?
>

The only concern I have with that is if someone paints themselves into a 
corner and absolutely wants, say, LZO.

Otherwise, per your list it pretty much sounds like we should have lz4, 
gzip, and xz.

	-hpa

-- 
H. Peter Anvin, Intel Open Source Technology Center
I work for Intel.  I don't speak on their behalf.

--
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/