linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] blackfin: Cleanup linker script using new linker script macros.

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: <alpine.DEB.1.10.0909221035180.15595@dr-wily.mit.edu>
Date:	Tue, 22 Sep 2009 11:29:43 -0400 (EDT)
From:	Tim Abbott <tabbott@...lice.com>
To:	Mike Frysinger <vapier.adi@...il.com>
cc:	Sam Ravnborg <sam@...nborg.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Bryan Wu <cooloney@...nel.org>,
	uclinux-dist-devel@...ckfin.uclinux.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] blackfin: Cleanup linker script using new linker script
 	macros.

On Wed, 16 Sep 2009, Mike Frysinger wrote:

> On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 16:26, Sam Ravnborg wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 11:58:01AM -0400, Tim Abbott wrote:
> >> OK.  I guess we should plan to modify the INIT_DATA_SECTION macro to add
> >> another argument specifying an alignment level for .init.ramfs.  It'd be
> >> inconvenient to add that right now since there are a lot of patches in
> >> linux-next or otherwise in flight that introduce uses of
> >> INIT_DATA_SECTION, and those patches would all be broken by changing this
> >> now.  Once the dust settles on that for this release, I'll submit a patch
> >> adding said argument to INIT_DATA_SECTION.
> >
> > But this is all discarded during runtime so the added alignment has no cost in the end - no?
> 
> once things are booted, there should be no difference.  but
> storage/boot costs increase (you have to store/extract/copy that extra
> data).  you know how miserly we embedded people like to be ;).

OK, so how do you want to do this?  The options I see are:
(1) we merge this patch now, and add the new alignment argument for -rc2
(2) we add the alignment argument sometime after -rc1 and then merge this 
for -rc2

	-Tim Abbott