Re: armel/marvell kernel size
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
Reply to: