linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] Force UNIX domain sockets to be built in

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: <20071231180526.GB2360@does.not.exist>
Date:	Mon, 31 Dec 2007 20:05:26 +0200
From:	Adrian Bunk <bunk@...nel.org>
To:	Bodo Eggert <7eggert@....de>
Cc:	Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@...putergmbh.de>, devzero@....de,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Force UNIX domain sockets to be built in

On Mon, Dec 31, 2007 at 04:19:23PM +0100, Bodo Eggert wrote:
> On Mon, 31 Dec 2007, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > On Mon, Dec 31, 2007 at 02:26:42PM +0100, Bodo Eggert wrote:
> > > On Mon, 31 Dec 2007, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Dec 31, 2007 at 01:09:43PM +0100, Bodo Eggert wrote:
> 
> > > > > As suggested by Adrian Bunk, UNIX domain sockets should always be built in 
> > > > > on normal systems. This is especially true since udev needs these sockets
> > > > > and fails to run if UNIX=m.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Signed-Off-By: Bodo Eggert <7eggert@....de>
> > > > > 
> > > > > ---
> > > > > Last minute change: I decided against making it a bool because embedded 
> > > > > folks might depend on a small kernel image. Edited in the patch below.
> > > > >...
> > > > 
> > > > Is this just a purely theoretical thought or is this a reasonable use 
> > > > case people actually use in practice?
> > >  
> > > For now, it's a theoretical thought, but having an embedded device, I can 
> > > see the reason for $EVERYTHING=m there.
> > 
> > The only advantage I see is that the kernel image you have to flash 
> > can be made smaller - with the disadvantage that the running kernel
> > is bigger by more than 10%.
> > 
> > If you don't believe me, try it yourself:
> > Build all drivers statically into your kernel, and then compare the 
> > vmlinux sizes with CONFIG_MODULES=n and CONFIG_MODULES=y.
> 
> If you'd aim for a small kernel image, you would build anything as a module 
> that is not requred for booting.
>...

Small kernel image to flash (e.g. due to a size limit there), if you 
would aim for a small running kernel you wouldn't use modules.

And I'm not so sure about the image size without seeing actual numbers, 
e.g. for your device.

Especially comparing your all-modular approach with a CONFIG_MODULES=n 
kernel using Denys' section garbage collection patches in both cases 
would be interesting.

I'm not claiming you are wrong, all I say is that I'm not convinced 
without actual numbers that you are right.

cu
Adrian

-- 

       "Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
        of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
       "Only a promise," Lao Er said.
                                       Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed

--
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/