* Re: x86: Remove STACKPROTECTOR_ALL
[not found] <200911021859.nA2Ix4cB023712@hera.kernel.org>
@ 2009-11-10 22:23 ` Thomas Backlund
2009-12-05 19:58 ` [stable] " Greg KH
0 siblings, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread
From: Thomas Backlund @ 2009-11-10 22:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Linux Kernel Mailing List; +Cc: stable
I think this one should go to 2.6.31.x too ...
> Gitweb: http://git.kernel.org/linus/14a3f40aafacde1dfd6912327ae14df4baf10304
> Commit: 14a3f40aafacde1dfd6912327ae14df4baf10304
> Parent: 02dd0a0613e0d84c7dd8315e3fe6204d005b7c79
> Author: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@infradead.org>
> AuthorDate: Fri Oct 23 07:31:01 2009 -0700
> Committer: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
> CommitDate: Fri Oct 23 16:35:23 2009 +0200
>
> x86: Remove STACKPROTECTOR_ALL
>
> STACKPROTECTOR_ALL has a really high overhead (runtime and stack
> footprint) and is not really worth it protection wise (the
> normal STACKPROTECTOR is in effect for all functions with
> buffers already), so lets just remove the option entirely.
>
> Reported-by: Dave Jones <davej@redhat.com>
> Reported-by: Chuck Ebbert <cebbert@redhat.com>
> Signed-off-by: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@linux.intel.com>
> Cc: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@redhat.com>
> LKML-Reference: <20091023073101.3dce4ebb@infradead.org>
> Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
> ---
> arch/x86/Kconfig | 4 ----
> arch/x86/Makefile | 1 -
> 2 files changed, 0 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/x86/Kconfig b/arch/x86/Kconfig
> index 07e0114..72ace95 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/Kconfig
> +++ b/arch/x86/Kconfig
> @@ -1443,12 +1443,8 @@ config SECCOMP
>
> If unsure, say Y. Only embedded should say N here.
>
> -config CC_STACKPROTECTOR_ALL
> - bool
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread* Re: [stable] x86: Remove STACKPROTECTOR_ALL
2009-11-10 22:23 ` x86: Remove STACKPROTECTOR_ALL Thomas Backlund
@ 2009-12-05 19:58 ` Greg KH
2009-12-06 23:24 ` Thomas Backlund
0 siblings, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread
From: Greg KH @ 2009-12-05 19:58 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Thomas Backlund; +Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List, stable
On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 12:23:16AM +0200, Thomas Backlund wrote:
> I think this one should go to 2.6.31.x too ...
>
> > Gitweb: http://git.kernel.org/linus/14a3f40aafacde1dfd6912327ae14df4baf10304
> > Commit: 14a3f40aafacde1dfd6912327ae14df4baf10304
> > Parent: 02dd0a0613e0d84c7dd8315e3fe6204d005b7c79
> > Author: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@infradead.org>
> > AuthorDate: Fri Oct 23 07:31:01 2009 -0700
> > Committer: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
> > CommitDate: Fri Oct 23 16:35:23 2009 +0200
> >
> > x86: Remove STACKPROTECTOR_ALL
> >
> > STACKPROTECTOR_ALL has a really high overhead (runtime and stack
> > footprint) and is not really worth it protection wise (the
> > normal STACKPROTECTOR is in effect for all functions with
> > buffers already), so lets just remove the option entirely.
> >
> > Reported-by: Dave Jones <davej@redhat.com>
> > Reported-by: Chuck Ebbert <cebbert@redhat.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@linux.intel.com>
> > Cc: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@redhat.com>
> > LKML-Reference: <20091023073101.3dce4ebb@infradead.org>
> > Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
It doesn't really "fix" anything, so I'd prefer not too.
thanks,
greg k-h
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: [stable] x86: Remove STACKPROTECTOR_ALL
2009-12-05 19:58 ` [stable] " Greg KH
@ 2009-12-06 23:24 ` Thomas Backlund
0 siblings, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: Thomas Backlund @ 2009-12-06 23:24 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Greg KH; +Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List, stable
Greg KH skrev:
> On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 12:23:16AM +0200, Thomas Backlund wrote:
>> I think this one should go to 2.6.31.x too ...
>>
>>> Gitweb: http://git.kernel.org/linus/14a3f40aafacde1dfd6912327ae14df4baf10304
>>> Commit: 14a3f40aafacde1dfd6912327ae14df4baf10304
>>> Parent: 02dd0a0613e0d84c7dd8315e3fe6204d005b7c79
>>> Author: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@infradead.org>
>>> AuthorDate: Fri Oct 23 07:31:01 2009 -0700
>>> Committer: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
>>> CommitDate: Fri Oct 23 16:35:23 2009 +0200
>>>
>>> x86: Remove STACKPROTECTOR_ALL
>>>
>>> STACKPROTECTOR_ALL has a really high overhead (runtime and stack
>>> footprint) and is not really worth it protection wise (the
>>> normal STACKPROTECTOR is in effect for all functions with
>>> buffers already), so lets just remove the option entirely.
>>>
>>> Reported-by: Dave Jones <davej@redhat.com>
>>> Reported-by: Chuck Ebbert <cebbert@redhat.com>
>>> Signed-off-by: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@linux.intel.com>
>>> Cc: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@redhat.com>
>>> LKML-Reference: <20091023073101.3dce4ebb@infradead.org>
>>> Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
>
> It doesn't really "fix" anything, so I'd prefer not too.
>
The reason for I suggested it was that is's supposed to remove some
bloating, and reportedly xfs from blowing up:
http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=125614028227106&w=2
But anyway, it's your call...
--
Thomas
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Chuck Ebbert <cebbert@redhat.com>
@ 2009-10-23 14:31 Arjan van de Ven
2009-10-23 14:35 ` x86: Remove STACKPROTECTOR_ALL Ingo Molnar
0 siblings, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread
From: Arjan van de Ven @ 2009-10-23 14:31 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-kernel
Cc: Dave Jones, Linux Kernel, Thomas Gleixner, esandeen, cebbert,
Arjan van de Ven, H. Peter Anvin, Eric Sandeen, Chuck Ebbert,
mingo
>From 87296b9275e3561822e1322f9d9aa6c73424e672 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@linux.intel.com>
Date: Fri, 23 Oct 2009 07:27:31 -0700
Subject: [PATCH] x86: remove STACKPROTECTOR_ALL
STACKPROTECTOR_ALL has a really high overhead (runtime and stack footprint)
and is not really worth it protection wise (the normal STACKPROTECTOR is
in effect for all functions with buffers already), so lets just remove
the option entirely.
Reported-by: Dave Jones <davej@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@linux.intel.com>
---
arch/x86/Kconfig | 4 ----
arch/x86/Makefile | 1 -
2 files changed, 0 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/x86/Kconfig b/arch/x86/Kconfig
index 07e0114..72ace95 100644
--- a/arch/x86/Kconfig
+++ b/arch/x86/Kconfig
@@ -1443,12 +1443,8 @@ config SECCOMP
If unsure, say Y. Only embedded should say N here.
-config CC_STACKPROTECTOR_ALL
- bool
-
config CC_STACKPROTECTOR
bool "Enable -fstack-protector buffer overflow detection (EXPERIMENTAL)"
- select CC_STACKPROTECTOR_ALL
---help---
This option turns on the -fstack-protector GCC feature. This
feature puts, at the beginning of functions, a canary value on
diff --git a/arch/x86/Makefile b/arch/x86/Makefile
index a012ee8..d2d24c9 100644
--- a/arch/x86/Makefile
+++ b/arch/x86/Makefile
@@ -76,7 +76,6 @@ ifdef CONFIG_CC_STACKPROTECTOR
cc_has_sp := $(srctree)/scripts/gcc-x86_$(BITS)-has-stack-protector.sh
ifeq ($(shell $(CONFIG_SHELL) $(cc_has_sp) $(CC) $(biarch)),y)
stackp-y := -fstack-protector
- stackp-$(CONFIG_CC_STACKPROTECTOR_ALL) += -fstack-protector-all
KBUILD_CFLAGS += $(stackp-y)
else
$(warning stack protector enabled but no compiler support)
--
1.6.2.5
--
Arjan van de Ven Intel Open Source Technology Centre
For development, discussion and tips for power savings,
visit http://www.lesswatts.org
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread* Re: x86: Remove STACKPROTECTOR_ALL
2009-10-23 14:31 Chuck Ebbert <cebbert@redhat.com> Arjan van de Ven
@ 2009-10-23 14:35 ` Ingo Molnar
0 siblings, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: Ingo Molnar @ 2009-10-23 14:35 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Arjan van de Ven
Cc: linux-kernel, Dave Jones, Thomas Gleixner, esandeen, cebbert,
H. Peter Anvin, Eric Sandeen
* Arjan van de Ven <arjan@infradead.org> wrote:
>
> >From 87296b9275e3561822e1322f9d9aa6c73424e672 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@linux.intel.com>
> Date: Fri, 23 Oct 2009 07:27:31 -0700
> Subject: [PATCH] x86: remove STACKPROTECTOR_ALL
>
> STACKPROTECTOR_ALL has a really high overhead (runtime and stack footprint)
> and is not really worth it protection wise (the normal STACKPROTECTOR is
> in effect for all functions with buffers already), so lets just remove
> the option entirely.
>
> Reported-by: Dave Jones <davej@redhat.com>
> Signed-off-by: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@linux.intel.com>
> ---
> arch/x86/Kconfig | 4 ----
> arch/x86/Makefile | 1 -
> 2 files changed, 0 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
Applied, thanks Arjan!
Ingo
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2009-12-06 23:49 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
[not found] <200911021859.nA2Ix4cB023712@hera.kernel.org>
2009-11-10 22:23 ` x86: Remove STACKPROTECTOR_ALL Thomas Backlund
2009-12-05 19:58 ` [stable] " Greg KH
2009-12-06 23:24 ` Thomas Backlund
2009-10-23 14:31 Chuck Ebbert <cebbert@redhat.com> Arjan van de Ven
2009-10-23 14:35 ` x86: Remove STACKPROTECTOR_ALL Ingo Molnar
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox