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] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YrR26pFadVbt5RSh@FVFF77S0Q05N.cambridge.arm.com>
Date:   Thu, 23 Jun 2022 15:21:30 +0100
From:   Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>
To:     Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, x86@...nel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>,
        christophe.leroy@...roup.eu, naveen.n.rao@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
        mbenes@...e.cz, Nathan Chancellor <nathan@...nel.org>,
        Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>,
        Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] ftrace,objtool: PC32 based __mcount_loc

On Wed, Jun 22, 2022 at 10:54:36AM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Fri, 17 Jun 2022 12:40:00 +0100
> Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com> wrote:
> 
> > We have a similar issue on arm64, which is exacerbated by needing ABS64
> > relocations (24 bytes per entry!) adding significant bloat when FTRACE is
> > enabled.
> 
> I have patches that bring down the size quite a bit. The mcount loc is
> read into the dyn_rec, which has two longs (the second long is the
> flags that only use 32 bits, but is a long to make it aligned, as a 64
> bit word followed by a 32bit word just added 32 bits of padding to make
> it an array).
> 
> The patches make it into two ints (which bring down the size for 64 bit
> machines). The lists are broken up into blocks, and what I do is put
> the top 32 bits of a word into the top of the block, and make sure that
> they are the same among all the entries in the block.
> 
> I guess its time to bring this back alive.

I don't think that helps? I'm on about the size of the kernel "Image" file, not
the runtime memory footprint.

... unless you mean doing that at compiler time?

Mark.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ