linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 4/8] objtool: add undwarf debuginfo generation

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: <20170629144618.vdzem7o6ib5nqab6@gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 29 Jun 2017 16:46:18 +0200
From:   Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
To:     Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>
Cc:     x86@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        live-patching@...r.kernel.org,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>, Jiri Slaby <jslaby@...e.cz>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 4/8] objtool: add undwarf debuginfo generation


* Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com> wrote:

> > Plus, shouldn't we use __packed for 'struct undwarf' to minimize the 
> > structure's size (to 6 bytes AFAICS?) - or is optimal packing of the main 
> > undwarf array already guaranteed on every platform with this layout?
> 
> Ah yes, it should definitely be packed (assuming that doesn't affect performance 
> negatively).

So if I count that correctly that should shave another ~1MB off a typical ~4MB 
table size?

Thanks,

	Ingo