linux-kernel - Re: blacklist kernel boot option

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <200701291438.25400.oliver@neukum.name>
Date:	Mon, 29 Jan 2007 14:38:22 +0100 (MET)
From:	Oliver Neukum <oliver@...kum.name>
To:	Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@...ux01.gwdg.de>
Cc:	Gerd Hoffmann <kraxel@...e.de>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: blacklist kernel boot option

Am Montag, 29. Januar 2007 14:23 schrieb Jan Engelhardt:
> 
> On Jan 29 2007 13:44, Oliver Neukum wrote:

> >What use is it to modularly compile something that almost everybody needs?
> 
> [correction: meant CONFIG_BLK_DEV_MD, because CONFIG_MD itself does
> not generate any code]
> 
> So just because almost everyone needs CONFIG_SCSI (SATA, usb_storage,
> you name it), you're going to compile that in as well? It's just
> another 180 KB [BLK_DEV_MD: ~100K] so let's compile it in!

For every module you waste PAGE_SIZE/2. In my system
oliver@...isk:~/Desktop/linux-2.6.20-6-greg> lsmod|wc
     46     158    1827
that's 92K. There is a point where the number of people who don't
need it grows too small to justify that.

> There is a reason initramfs exists, and it's not only for firmware
> loading or running custom scripts.

But shrinking the statically compiled kernel isn't one of them. You need
to look at the actual memory footprint.

	Regards
		Oliver
-
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/