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] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:   Wed, 20 Dec 2017 14:39:18 +0100
From:   Alexander Sverdlin <alexander.sverdlin@...il.com>
To:     Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Cc:     Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
        Lukasz Majewski <lukma@...x.de>,
        Hartley Sweeten <hsweeten@...ionengravers.com>,
        Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
        Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Olof Johansson <olof@...om.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 0/4] ARM: ep93xx: ts72xx: Add support for BK3 board

Hi Arnd!

On Wed Dec 20 14:14:07 2017 Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de> wrote:
> > If it will be still possible to build the binary kernel of the same
> > size after the conversion, I'm in for testing, otherwise it will not
> > fit into Flash any more...
> 
> I think there is an increase in code size that comes mainly from the
> common clock layer itself, plus a few bytes here and there. Obviously
> the increase is much bigger if you actually enable multiple platforms.
> 
> Here is the size of the uncompressed vmlinux file with the current
> clk implementation, compared to a build with a build containing the
> common clk code but no clock driver, and the separate clock
> implementation we have today:
> 
>       text       data         bss         dec         hex filename
> 4752655 1036028 128260 5916943 5a490f build/tmp/vmlinux-old-clk
> 4780174 1040524 128284 5948982 5ac636 build/tmp/vmlinux-common-clk
>       2491       1700             0       4191       105f
> build/tmp/arch/arm/mach-ep93xx/clock.o
> 
> The difference would come to about 0.7% of the current image size,
> I guess around 1% when the other changes are included. Is that within
> the margins you have, or is this already critical?

No, your numbers are promising, I was afraid of the increase of other orders of magnitude. So this should be fine.

Thanks for this info.

--
Alex.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists