linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] Add possibility to set /dev/tty number

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, 5 Jan 2016 20:47:45 +0000
From:	One Thousand Gnomes <gnomes@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
To:	"Austin S. Hemmelgarn" <ahferroin7@...il.com>
Cc:	Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
	Pierre Paul MINGOT <mingot.pierre@...il.com>, jslaby@...e.cz,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Add possibility to set /dev/tty number

> This means that not including the VT subsystem resulted in a 128k 
> reduction in runtime footprint, and having only half the number of VT's 
> resulted in a 52k reduction.  Assuming a linear correlation between the 
> number of VT's and the runtime footprint of the subsystem, that means 
> the subsystem itself incurs 26k of overhead, and each VT incurs 
> approximately 1.6k of overhead.

Doesn't seem an unreasonable value - so yes you've made an argument for
dynamically allocating the vt structures when they are first referenced.

Alan
--
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/