linux-kernel - Re: Exposing device ids and driver names

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: <4AC4FB77.2090600@natemccallum.com>
Date:	Thu, 01 Oct 2009 14:56:55 -0400
From:	Nathaniel McCallum <nathaniel@...emccallum.com>
To:	Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>
CC:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Exposing device ids and driver names

On 10/01/2009 02:40 PM, Greg KH wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 01, 2009 at 02:35:40PM -0400, Nathaniel McCallum wrote:
>> On 10/01/2009 02:05 PM, Greg KH wrote:
>>> On Thu, Oct 01, 2009 at 01:01:50PM -0400, Nathaniel McCallum wrote:
>>>> On 10/01/2009 12:42 PM, Greg KH wrote:
>>>>> Why not just use the baseline kernel as a model for this.  Do a 'make
>>>>> allmodconfig' and then extract the data and publish it that way.  No
>>>>> kernel changes are needed, and then any distro can be easily matched up
>>>>> by this based on what they are using.  That will save you time in
>>>>> downloading zillions of distro releases, and provide a nice easy way to
>>>>> show what the kernel.org releases support.
>>>>
>>>> Unfortunately, I would not be able to track changes to the kernel in
>>>> this model.  Since this is one of my explicit goals (to make sure that
>>>> distro kernel changes get upstream), I think a non-invasive kernel
>>>> modification would be worth the effort.
>>>
>>> But this was an invasive modification, it added space to the kernel
>>> images for no real benifit other than for your tracking tools.  That's
>>> not going to fly unless you can find another good use for the change.
>>
>> Which is why I asked for advice for better options.  I would prefer a
>> non-invasive modification.  I am hoping that someone more familiar with
>> the layer would provide such a suggestion.
>>
>> One potential benefit for moving module info to ELF sections would be
>> the ability to strip kernel modules.  As a test, I did this on a recent
>> Fedora rawhide kernel I had lying around.  Stripping the modules results
>> in a 43% decrease in size (82M to 47M).
>
> Did those modules have debugging symbols enabled?  That seems like a
> large savings for just the module device tables.

It does not appear so (none of the debug sections are present).  But I 
could be wrong.

Stripping the modules on the penultimate Fedora 11 kernel results in the 
same drop in size.  I can't imagine why a release kernel would have 
anything extra left in the modules (unless it is just by accident).

Nathaniel
--
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/