linux-kernel - Re: bloated defconfigs

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Sat, 28 Jul 2018 16:01:41 +0300
From:   Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
To:     Andreas Kemnade <andreas@...nade.info>
Cc:     Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: bloated defconfigs

On Sat, Jul 28, 2018 at 3:59 PM, Andreas Kemnade <andreas@...nade.info> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I just stumbled upon our defconfigs.
>
> andi@...ux:~/gta04/gta04-kernel$ ls -l arch/arm/configs/ -Sr | tail -n
> 10 -rw-r--r-- 1 andi andi   9524 Apr  7 14:53 imote2_defconfig
> -rw-r--r-- 1 andi andi   9985 Jul 28 13:34 imx_v6_v7_defconfig
> -rw-r--r-- 1 andi andi  10118 Apr  7 14:53 ezx_defconfig
> -rw-r--r-- 1 andi andi  10665 Apr  7 14:53 s3c2410_defconfig
> -rw-r--r-- 1 andi andi  13161 May 29 18:14 omap2plus_defconfig
> -rw-r--r-- 1 andi andi  17834 May 29 18:14 pxa_defconfig
> -rw-r--r-- 1 andi andi  24624 Jul 28 13:34 multi_v7_defconfig
> -rw-r--r-- 1 andi andi 157222 Jul 28 13:34 letux_udoo_defconfig
> -rw-r--r-- 1 andi andi 157271 Jul 28 13:34 letux_lpae_defconfig
> -rw-r--r-- 1 andi andi 157352 Jul 28 13:34 letux_defconfig
>
>
> So we are bloated somehow. So I am wondering how these defconfigs are created.
> AFAIK the tool is
>
> make ARCH=arm CROSS_COMPILE=... savedefconfig
>
> the file can then be used as a defconfig. I just did it and copied it over to
> .config and used
> make ARCH=arm CROSS_COMPILE=... olddefconfig
>
> The result is the same. But the defconfig created by savedefconfig is only 20KB.
> Well, what is the advantage? We have a better overview where we have
> non-default values.

So, why not to send patches?


-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko