Re: x86: Remove STACKPROTECTOR_ALL

Re: x86: Remove STACKPROTECTOR_ALL

[Thomas Backlund]

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

Re: [stable] x86: Remove STACKPROTECTOR_ALL

[Greg KH]

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

Re: [stable] x86: Remove STACKPROTECTOR_ALL

[Thomas Backlund]

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