linux-kernel - Re: RFC - size tool for kernel build system

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Message-Id: <200810091434.35783.rgetz@blackfin.uclinux.org>
Date:	Thu, 9 Oct 2008 14:34:35 -0400
From:	Robin Getz <rgetz@...ckfin.uclinux.org>
To:	"Adrian Bunk" <bunk@...nel.org>
Cc:	"Tim Bird" <tim.bird@...sony.com>,
	"linux-embedded" <linux-embedded@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux kernel" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: RFC - size tool for kernel build system

On Thu 9 Oct 2008 11:21, Adrian Bunk pondered:
> On Tue, Oct 07, 2008 at 02:19:36PM -0700, Tim Bird wrote:
> > I've been thinking about a tool that might be useful
> > to track kernel size changes.  I'm posting this
> > Request For Comments to get feedback, and determine
> > if this is something that would be worthwhile to
> > pursue.
> > 
> > What I envision is some new kernel build targets, specifically
> > related to gathering size information and generating a size
> > comparison report.  Some small helper scripts would be written
> > to gather the necessary information, and generate the report.
> >...
> > Any comments?
> 
> The building blocks that would be useful are IMHO:
> - a make target that generates a report for one kernel
>   (like the checkstack or export_report targets)

and the report includes sizes of more than just the text section? Which is my 
biggest pet peeve with bloat-o-meter today, since it uses nm, not readelf - 
and saving data is just as important as saving instruction.

> - a script that compares two such reports and outputs the
>   size differences
> 
> That's also easy to do, and if that's what's wanted I can send a patch 
> that does it.
> 
> Everything else is IMHO overdesigned.

I understand the desire though - make it easier to compare two setups.

capturing a make target into a file, (make size_report > config1.size) and 
running a compare on two outputs seems like a more "standard" way of doing 
things...
--
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/