From: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@redhat.com>
To: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@infradead.org>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>, Dave Jones <davej@redhat.com>,
Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
esandeen@redhat.com, cebbert@redhat.com,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>
Subject: Re: Unnecessary overhead with stack protector.
Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2009 13:59:04 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4ADF59F8.7010205@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20091021110053.26ab9982@infradead.org>
Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 10:50:02 -0500
> Eric Sandeen <sandeen@redhat.com> wrote:
>
>> Ingo Molnar wrote:
>>> (Cc:-ed Arjan too.)
>>>
>>> * Dave Jones <davej@redhat.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> 113c5413cf9051cc50b88befdc42e3402bb92115 introduced a change that
>>>> made CC_STACKPROTECTOR_ALL not-selectable if someone enables
>>>> CC_STACKPROTECTOR.
>>>>
>>>> We've noticed in Fedora that this has introduced noticable
>>>> overhead on some functions, including those which don't even have
>>>> any on-stack variables.
>>>>
>>>> According to the gcc manpage, -fstack-protector will protect
>>>> functions with as little as 8 bytes of stack usage. So we're
>>>> introducing a huge amount of overhead, to close a small amount of
>>>> vulnerability (the >0 && <8 case).
>>>>
>>>> The overhead as it stands right now means this whole option is
>>>> unusable for a distro kernel without reverting the above commit.
>>> Exactly what workload showed overhead, and how much?
>>>
>>> Ingo
>> I had xfs blowing up pretty nicely; granted, xfs is not svelte but it
>> was never this bad before.
>>
>
> do you have any indication that SP actually increases the stack
> footprint by that much? it's only a few bytes....
>
>
Here's a sample of some of the largest xfs stack users,
and the effect stack-protector had on them. This was just
done with objdump -d xfs.ko | scripts/checkstack.pl; I don't
know if there's extra runtime stack overhead w/ stackprotector?
-Eric
function nostack stackprot delta delta %
xfs_bmapi 376 408 32 9%
xfs_bulkstat 328 344 16 5%
_xfs_trans_commit 296 312 16 5%
xfs_iomap_write_delay 264 280 16 6%
xfs_file_ioctl 248 312 64 26%
xfs_symlink 248 264 16 6%
xfs_bunmapi 232 280 48 21%
xlog_do_recovery_pass 232 248 16 7%
xfs_trans_unreserve_and_mod_sb 224 240 16 7%
xfs_bmap_del_extent 216 248 32 15%
xfs_cluster_write 216 232 16 7%
xfs_file_compat_ioctl 216 296 80 37%
xfs_attr_set_int 200 216 16 8%
xfs_bmap_add_extent_delay_real 200 248 48 24%
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-10-21 18:59 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-10-15 18:35 Unnecessary overhead with stack protector Dave Jones
2009-10-15 19:07 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-10-21 15:50 ` Eric Sandeen
2009-10-21 18:00 ` Arjan van de Ven
2009-10-21 18:59 ` Eric Sandeen [this message]
2009-10-21 19:09 ` Eric Sandeen
2009-10-21 19:24 ` Eric Sandeen
2009-10-21 21:08 ` Chuck Ebbert
2009-10-21 19:16 ` XFS stack overhead Ingo Molnar
2009-10-21 19:21 ` Eric Sandeen
2009-10-21 20:22 ` Chuck Ebbert
2009-10-22 1:26 ` Unnecessary overhead with stack protector Andrew Morton
2009-10-26 16:30 ` Chuck Ebbert
2009-10-26 16:37 ` Andrew Morton
2009-10-26 16:56 ` Chuck Ebbert
2009-10-26 20:03 ` Ingo Molnar
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=4ADF59F8.7010205@redhat.com \
--to=sandeen@redhat.com \
--cc=arjan@infradead.org \
--cc=cebbert@redhat.com \
--cc=davej@redhat.com \
--cc=esandeen@redhat.com \
--cc=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox