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: Wed, 10 Apr 2019 21:19:17 +0200 From: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de> To: Olof Johansson <olof@...om.net> Cc: Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>, Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Qais Yousef <qais.yousef@....com>, Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>, Manoj Rao <linux@...ojrajarao.com>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>, atish patra <atishp04@...il.com>, Daniel Colascione <dancol@...gle.com>, Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>, Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>, Guenter Roeck <groeck@...omium.org>, Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>, Karim Yaghmour <karim.yaghmour@...rsys.com>, Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>, Android Kernel Team <kernel-team@...roid.com>, "open list:DOCUMENTATION" <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>, "open list:KERNEL SELFTEST FRAMEWORK" <linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org>, linux-trace-devel@...r.kernel.org, Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@...ionext.com>, Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>, Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>, Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>, Yonghong Song <yhs@...com> Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 1/3] Provide in-kernel headers to make extending kernel easier On Wed, Apr 10, 2019 at 5:09 PM Olof Johansson <olof@...om.net> wrote: > > As far as format goes; there's clear precedent on cpio being used and > supported; we already have build time requirements on the userspace > tools with some options. Using tar would actually be a new dependency > even if it is a common tool to have installed. With a self-populating > FS, there's no new tool requirements on the runtime side either. The decision between tar and cpio directly follows from whether the headers are uncompressed in kernel space or in user space: - we use cpio for initramfs because unpacking cpio in C code is fairly simple, while unpacking tar is not (see the wikipedia page on tar). If we were to unpack it from the kernel, the initramfs code could be trivially reused. - nobody sane uses cpio in user space, since tar is already present almost everywhere, while cpio is rather obscure in comparison. Arnd
Powered by blists - more mailing lists