linux-kernel - Re: [GIT PULL] bzip2/lzma kernel compression

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

Message-ID: <49699954.9090505@knaff.lu>
Date:	Sun, 11 Jan 2009 08:01:40 +0100
From:	Alain Knaff <alain@...ff.lu>
To:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
CC:	Sam Ravnborg <sam@...nborg.org>,
	Russell King <rmk@....linux.org.uk>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] bzip2/lzma kernel compression

H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> Alain Knaff wrote:
>> But now I am curious how this will evolve from here. I suppose it will
>> soon appear in one of the patch-2.6.28-gitxy.gz under
>> ftp://ftp.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/v2.6/snapshots , and then in an
>> 2.6.29-rcx etc.
>> Or are there some more other steps involved in between?
>>
> 
> Well, Linus opted not to merge it for 2.6.29-rc1, which means it is dead
> for this merge cycle.

Too bad :(

For when is the next merge window scheduled (approximatively...)?

What impact does this have on procedure for supplying updates to it?
Indeed, I've got a couple of new features in the pipeline that I'd like
to add in the new future:
 - centralizing the switch of kernel compression in a common place (will
make it easier to add new compressions once all architectures support
the new scheme, without the need of touching all of them).
 - support for new LZMA variant with "real" magic numbers
 - support for "no kernel compression" option (people have asked me for
this for the case where they have a boot loader that already handles
decompression)

>  This gives us a couple of options, with the aim
> to get it merged into 2.6.30:
> 
> - We can continue to carry it in the -tip tree, which also means it will
>   be in the linux-next tree.
> - We can push it to Andrew Morton for the -mm tree.
> - Sam could take it in his kbuild tree.

What are the advantages and disadvantages of each of those? Personally,
I'd prefer a choice that:
 - allows the most lightweight procedure for updating it (i.e. allows to
supply incremental changes, rather than do a "full" release)
 - is most visible (so that when people ask me for it, I can for example
tell them "it's already in the -mm tree, download it from xxx". Oh, and
visibility will give it also more test exposure)

> Out of these, I think the kbuild tree is entirely inappropriate.  The
> selection of the other two is mostly a matter of testing, and which way
> will be easier to add the ARM code and other arch support.

Well ease of merging the ARM code in is obviously also a consideration
to take into account.

> 
> 	-hpa
> 

Regards,

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/