linux-kernel - Re: Patches for REALLY TINY 386 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]

Message-ID: <20070720073509.GA19833@one.firstfloor.org>
Date:	Fri, 20 Jul 2007 09:35:09 +0200
From:	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
To:	Uwe Hermann <uwe@...mann-uwe.de>
Cc:	Matt Mackall <mpm@...enic.com>, Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
	Jonathan Campbell <jon@...dgrounds.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Patches for REALLY TINY 386 kernels

> Some people are putting Linux kernels in the "BIOS" (i.e. ROM chip) when
> using LinuxBIOS (www.linuxbios.org). It _does_ make a lot of difference
> there how big the kernel is. At the moment you can't do that with
> anything smaller than a 1 MB chip. But if people could use 512 KB chips
> because the kernel is small enough that would sure be a great thing.

I'm sure it would be possibel to save a lot of text size. But I don't
think removing the relatively small CPUID code is the right way.
That is just a big maintenance issue for little gain.

If you're seriously interested you should start measuring and then
attack the real bloat pigs. e.g. a good way is to look for unneeded
inlining.

And also do regression testing, like running bloat-o-meter between
releases and complaining about subsystems which have grown unduly.

-Andi
-
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/