linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 0/5] minitty: a minimal TTY layer alternative for embedded systems

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: <CAHp75VdCPHW-jZ7FCrEjqHQ6ULxH_U9EsBHTjb4a=Nhs_kYFGg@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 4 Apr 2017 00:05:10 +0300
From:   Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
To:     Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>,
        Tom Zanussi <tom.zanussi@...ux.intel.com>
Cc:     Stuart Longland <stuartl@...glandclan.id.au>,
        Nicolas Pitre <nicolas.pitre@...aro.org>,
        Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Jiri Slaby <jslaby@...e.com>,
        "linux-serial@...r.kernel.org" <linux-serial@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" 
        <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/5] minitty: a minimal TTY layer alternative for
 embedded systems

+Cc: Tom

Summon Tom to the discussion. He tried once hard to shrink a Linux
kernel to something working in 1M+ RAM on x86.

Tom, sorry, I recall this a bit late, perhaps you might be interested
in reading discussion from the beginning.

On Mon, Apr 3, 2017 at 9:14 PM, Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 3, 2017 at 12:44 AM, Stuart Longland
> <stuartl@...glandclan.id.au> wrote:
>> On 03/04/17 07:41, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
>>>> No PTYs seems like a big limitation. This means no sshd?
>>> Again, my ultimate system target is in the sub-megabyte of RAM.  I
>>> really doubt you'll be able to fit an SSH server in there even if PTYs
>>> were supported, unless sshd (or dropbear) can be made really tiny.
>>> Otherwise you most probably have sufficient resources to run the regular
>>> TTY code.
>>
>> Are we talking small microcontrollers here?  The smallest machine in
>> terms of RAM I ever recall running Linux on was a 386SX/25 MHz with 4MB
>> RAM, and that had a MMU.
>
> Let's halve that. I once tried and ran Linux in 2 MiB, incl. X, twm, and xterm.
> Of course with swap enabled.  And swapping like hell.


-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko