Hi On 2023-03-30, Elliott Mitchell wrote: > Full amd64 support isn't really appropriate for most situations > OpenWRT is deployed. Whereas x86-x32 seems extremely appropriate for > these situations. As such enable x86-x32 support. > > CONFIG_ARCH_MMAP_RND_COMPAT_BITS is required to follow along, > otherwise the kernel build breaks. > > Signed-off-by: Elliott Mitchell <ehem+open...@m5p.com> > --- > I suggest OpenWRT should be placing quite a bit of effort towards > x86-x32. x86-x32 seems a rather superior generic target for OpenWRT. > Only issue is it could be valuable to have at least minimal amd64 > userland support alongside the x86-x32 version.
x86_32 is pretty much dead in the water, with almost zero deployment
by general purpose distributions - apart from VM data centre
environments doing their own thing (least amount of RAM usage
possible, everything else being secondary at best). At least Debian
did raise security concerns about the x86_32 ISA in the past.
While I might understand (understand, not support) a desire for this
as a dedicated subtarget (to appease the virtualization crowd),
although I still don't see a reason or sufficient uptake in more
conventional Linux environments. I would not be happy (at all) to
lose 'normal' x86_64 support (on real hardware) for this exotic
fringe hybrid. I can imagine that actually building for this
environment (with a 32 bit userland) might lead to 'funny' results
as well (as in major toolchain changes necessary to get it working
as expected).
Regards
Stefan Lippers-Hollmann
pgpOhkC04JJfF.pgp
Description: Digitale Signatur von OpenPGP
_______________________________________________ openwrt-devel mailing list openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org https://lists.openwrt.org/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel
