Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.debian.kernel > #59248 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Ben Hutchings <ben@decadent.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2017-10-20 16:10 +0200 |
| Last post | 2017-10-29 18:20 +0100 |
| Articles | 4 — 2 participants |
Back to article view | Back to linux.debian.kernel
armel/marvell kernel size Ben Hutchings <ben@decadent.org.uk> - 2017-10-20 16:10 +0200
Re: armel/marvell kernel size Roger Shimizu <rogershimizu@gmail.com> - 2017-10-23 17:40 +0200
Re: armel/marvell kernel size Ben Hutchings <ben@decadent.org.uk> - 2017-10-26 23:10 +0200
Re: armel/marvell kernel size Roger Shimizu <rogershimizu@gmail.com> - 2017-10-29 18:20 +0100
| From | Ben Hutchings <ben@decadent.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-10-20 16:10 +0200 |
| Subject | armel/marvell kernel size |
| Message-ID | <uCG9P-4Kh-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw
Sadly, linux has again failed to build on armel in experimental due to the image size growing too large. Ben. -- Ben Hutchings Make three consecutive correct guesses and you will be considered an expert.
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Roger Shimizu <rogershimizu@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-10-23 17:40 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <uDMZz-7uD-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #59248 |
Dear Ben, Thanks for the ping! On Fri, Oct 20, 2017 at 11:07 PM, Ben Hutchings <ben@decadent.org.uk> wrote: > Sadly, linux has again failed to build on armel in experimental due to > the image size growing too large. Yes, I noticed this armel FTBFS issue. However, the solution simple solution, you mentioned in previous email [0], has been used. Now I think we have to touch the crypto module part, which affects cryptsetup/initramfs-tools. I'll try this approach this week. [0] https://lists.debian.org/debian-kernel/2017/05/msg00040.html Cheers, -- Roger Shimizu, GMT +9 Tokyo PGP/GPG: 4096R/6C6ACD6417B3ACB1
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben Hutchings <ben@decadent.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-10-26 23:10 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <uEXzA-294-11@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #59255 |
[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw
On Tue, 2017-10-24 at 00:10 +0900, Roger Shimizu wrote: > Dear Ben, > > Thanks for the ping! > > On Fri, Oct 20, 2017 at 11:07 PM, Ben Hutchings <ben@decadent.org.uk> wrote: > > Sadly, linux has again failed to build on armel in experimental due to > > the image size growing too large. > > Yes, I noticed this armel FTBFS issue. > However, the solution simple solution, you mentioned in previous email > [0], has been used. > Now I think we have to touch the crypto module part, which affects > cryptsetup/initramfs-tools. > I'll try this approach this week. > > [0] https://lists.debian.org/debian-kernel/2017/05/msg00040.html Since we are preparing to enable AppArmor by default, I looked at the armel config and found that it still had SECURITY_SELINUX enabled (but no other LSMs). I've just committed a change to the sid branch that disables that and enables SECURITY_APPARMOR instead. AppArmor appears to be smaller than SELinux, possibly by enough to fix this. Ben. -- Ben Hutchings The most exhausting thing in life is being insincere. - Anne Morrow Lindberg
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Roger Shimizu <rogershimizu@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-10-29 18:20 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <uFZpD-1tA-3@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #59272 |
On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 6:03 AM, Ben Hutchings <ben@decadent.org.uk> wrote: > On Tue, 2017-10-24 at 00:10 +0900, Roger Shimizu wrote: >> Dear Ben, >> >> Thanks for the ping! >> >> On Fri, Oct 20, 2017 at 11:07 PM, Ben Hutchings <ben@decadent.org.uk> wrote: >> > Sadly, linux has again failed to build on armel in experimental due to >> > the image size growing too large. >> >> Yes, I noticed this armel FTBFS issue. >> However, the solution simple solution, you mentioned in previous email >> [0], has been used. >> Now I think we have to touch the crypto module part, which affects >> cryptsetup/initramfs-tools. >> I'll try this approach this week. >> >> [0] https://lists.debian.org/debian-kernel/2017/05/msg00040.html > > Since we are preparing to enable AppArmor by default, I looked at the > armel config and found that it still had SECURITY_SELINUX enabled (but > no other LSMs). I've just committed a change to the sid branch that > disables that and enables SECURITY_APPARMOR instead. AppArmor appears > to be smaller than SELinux, possibly by enough to fix this. Thanks for the info! Yes, I confirm that after enabling AppArmor, armel kernel reduced to 98.6%, which is quite significant. However I'll keep trying to reduce by other way during buster period. Cheers, -- Roger Shimizu, GMT +9 Tokyo PGP/GPG: 4096R/6C6ACD6417B3ACB1
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Back to top | Article view | linux.debian.kernel
csiph-web