On 5/22/19 11:57 AM, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
> On Wed, 22 May 2019, Jesse Smith wrote:
>
>> I don't think removing the SELinux dependency from init actually saves
>> us any RAM. Several other services link to these libraries too, so the
> Maybe, maybe not. (I’m fairly sure I’ve got some VMs without.
On Wed, 22 May 2019, Jesse Smith wrote:
> I don't think removing the SELinux dependency from init actually saves
> us any RAM. Several other services link to these libraries too, so the
Maybe, maybe not. (I’m fairly sure I’ve got some VMs without.)
Other services can, however, be more easily res
On 5/21/19 8:45 PM, Dmitry Bogatov wrote:
> [2019-05-18 16:14] Jesse Smith
>> From a practical perspective, I'm curious if there is any benefit or
>> drawback. Is this patch fixing a known bug,
>> does it significantly reduce the size of PID 1 in memory?
> Not that I really care about 1Mb of RAM,
[2019-05-18 16:14] Jesse Smith
> From a practical perspective, I'm curious if there is any benefit or
> drawback. Is this patch fixing a known bug,
> does it significantly reduce the size of PID 1 in memory?
Not that I really care about 1Mb of RAM, but:
152K/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libselinux
I've looked over the patch and the logic seems straight forward enough.
Philosophically, I can see arguments for doing this (simplify the core
of init, remove a dependency) and against this idea (it adds a new
program to the sysvinit package and start-up process). So from a
philosophical stand poin
5 matches
Mail list logo
