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
| ||
|
Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2017 14:51:51 -0700 From: Siqi Lin <siqilin@...gle.com> To: Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...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 2:23 PM, Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com> wrote: > > 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)? > binutils 2.27 with this patch (with --no-apply-dynamic-relocs): Image 41535488 Image.gz 13404067 binutils 2.27 without this patch (without --no-apply-dynamic-relocs): Image 41535488 Image.gz 14125516 The 2.27 gzipped size with this patch is about the same as 2.25. > > 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