linux-kernel - Re: [update5] [PATCH] init: bzip2 or lzma -compressed kernels and initrds

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: <48F0559C.1040705@knaff.lu>
Date:	Sat, 11 Oct 2008 09:28:28 +0200
From:	Alain Knaff <alain@...ff.lu>
To:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
CC:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [update5] [PATCH] init: bzip2 or lzma -compressed kernels and
 initrds

H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> Alain Knaff wrote:
>> H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>>> Hi Alain,
>>>
>>> Are you planning to submit an updated patch any time soon?  If so,
>>> please separate the ARM, x86, library and generic portions into separate
>>> patches.  It looks like at least some of them already went into ARM,
>>> which makes it impractical to include this as a monolithic patch, which
>>> it really shouldn't have to be, anyway.
>>>
>>>     -hpa
>>
>> I'll look into it (the split) this weekend, if I'll find the time.
>> Should each part be compilable on its own? If so, it might be difficult
>> to do the split along the lines outlined above.
>>
> 
> Not individually, but part 1 should compile, as should parts 1+2, etc.
> 
> This pretty much means the order should be:
> 
> 1. add library functions
> 2. generic functionality
> 3. x86 functionality
> 4. ARM functionality

Unfortunately, due to the nature of the patch, it will be hard to
separate out "x86 functionality" from changes in lib/inflate.c . Indeed,
a large part of the patch consists in moving some gzip-specific headers
and internal variable declarations from the callers:
arch/x86/boot/compressed/misc.c on one hand, and init/do_mounts_rd.c and
init/initramfs.c on the other hand into lib/inflate.c

So, leaving out the x86-specific change
(arch/x86/boot/compressed/misc.c) in the first change, would force to
leave that change out of lib/inflate.c as well (or else, the
above-listed items would be doubly defined). But, if I left out these
changes of lib/inflate.c, I'd need to leave them out of and
init/do_mounts_rd.c and init/initramfs.c too (or else the above-listed
items would not be defined at all in that situation). Can you suggest a
solution? I could theoretically break that dependency chain using an
#ifdef (as was the case until patch 3), but apparently #ifdef's are
highly frowned upon. Or was it just the name of the ifdef ("NEW_CODE")
that you objected to? Another option would be to (temporarily) keep 2
copies of lib/inflate.c around, but somehow that doesn't feel right.

So can you suggest some way out of the situation?

> 
> Soem of these may be obsolete; I noticed collisions with the ARM tree.
> 
>     -hpa

Great! Could you tell me where to download the ARM tree from, so that I
can have a look?

Thanks,

Alain

--
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/