[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAKwvOdnE_owxGZgYvh1TvA50Hn7nk=9-3YFn6K59aO7khue4Cg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2017 14:41:11 -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 1:41 PM, Ard Biesheuvel
<ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org> wrote:>are seeded with the correct values,
I propose we simply drop the outer
> 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:
> ... Nick:
> That's what this patch does; goes back to the <2.27 behavior for 2.27+.
Sorry, rereading this thread, it sounds like neither of you were
disagreeing with me? Will post v2.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists