On Thu, Apr 27, 2023 at 12:46:49AM +0200, Stefan Lippers-Hollmann wrote: > > 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.
Error: undefined symbol "x86_32" Without the extra context I would resolve that to "i386"/"ia32". I think "x32" or "x86_x32" are better strings for this case. According to what I had read that was in the past when x32 was sharing less of the i386 ABI. Notably x32 had been trying to pass time values in a distinct fashion. I will conceed I'm unsure whether x32 is ever truly going to get a seat at the table. On a different news front, Linux 5.10 has an option CONFIG_X86_X32_DISABLED which leaves x32 disabled by default (Debian's kernels were configured this way). Whereas 5.15 has removed the CONFIG_X86_X32_DISABLED option which seems to suggest the concerns may have been assuaged. > 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). I'm not proposing removing amd64 support, I'm proposing x32 is likely a more valuable target. Yet what you're describing reads like your desire is for OpenWRT/x86 to simply be yet another desktop Linux distribution. Unless you feel a networking device really needs 256GB of memory, virtual machines are precisely what OpenWRT/x86 *should* target. I think it is reasonable to also have a jumbo/desktop build, but using an entire x86 machine doesn't seem to match OpenWRT's main theme. -- (\___(\___(\______ --=> 8-) EHM <=-- ______/)___/)___/) \BS ( | ehem+sig...@m5p.com PGP 87145445 | ) / \_CS\ | _____ -O #include <stddisclaimer.h> O- _____ | / _/ 8A19\___\_|_/58D2 7E3D DDF4 7BA6 <-PGP-> 41D1 B375 37D0 8714\_|_/___/5445 _______________________________________________ openwrt-devel mailing list openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org https://lists.openwrt.org/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel
