[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAKwvOdmZgzBneocuhhLs5YRwZv3JUvnSJSPi5pFCZbrkdNzc5w@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2017 14:23:39 -0700
From: Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>
To: Siqi Lin <siqilin@...gle.com>
Cc: Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
Jiri Kosina <jikos@...nel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>, Wei Wang <wvw@...gle.com>,
Gopinath Elanchezhian <gelanchezhian@...gle.com>,
spentyala@...gle.com, Rahul Chaudhry <rahulchaudhry@...gle.com>,
Stephen Hines <srhines@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] arm64: prevent regressions in compressed kernel image
size when upgrading to binutils 2.27
On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 2:17 PM, Siqi Lin <siqilin@...gle.com> wrote:
> I'm OK with sticking with the <2.27 binutils behavior. The gzip data is:
That's what this patch does; goes back to the <2.27 behavior for 2.27+.
> binutils 2.25:
> Image 41467904
> Image.gz 13395151
> binutils 2.27:
> Image 41467392
> Image.gz 14114953
>
> gzipped kernel increased by 0.69 MiB.
That's without this patch applied? With it applied, what are the
stats (for gzip)?
> The one special case I see is !CONFIG_RELOCATABLE and compression is
> used, where there's a tradeoff between compressed image size and the
> benefit of dynamic relocs.
if !CONFIG_RELOCATABLE, then this patch (well v2 which will use
CONFIG_RELOCATABLE rather than CONFIG_RANDOMIZE_BASE) doesn't do
anything.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists