From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>, Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Nicolas Pitre <nicolas.pitre@linaro.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
Russell King <linux@arm.linux.org.uk>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
"x86@kernel.org" <x86@kernel.org>,
Shawn Guo <shawn.guo@linaro.org>,
Olof Johansson <olofj@chromium.org>,
"linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] use -fstack-protector-strong
Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2013 09:55:47 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <52963223.9080701@zytor.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20131127175442.GA28088@gmail.com>
On 11/27/2013 09:54 AM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>>
>> Looks to be 2% for defconfig. That's way better. Shall I send a v3?
>
> Well, it's better than 9%, but still almost an order of magnitude
> higher than the cost is today, and a lot of distros have
> CONFIG_CC_STACKPROTECTOR=y.
>
> So it would be nice to measure how much the instruction count goes up
> in some realistic system-bound test. How much does something like
> kernel/built-in.o increase, as per 'size' output?
>
Do we need CONFIG_CC_STACKPROTECTOR_STRONG?
-hpa
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-11-27 17:56 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-11-26 20:37 [PATCH v2] use -fstack-protector-strong Kees Cook
2013-11-27 11:27 ` Ingo Molnar
2013-11-27 17:21 ` Kees Cook
2013-11-27 17:54 ` Ingo Molnar
2013-11-27 17:55 ` H. Peter Anvin [this message]
2013-11-27 18:11 ` Kees Cook
2013-12-17 0:57 ` Kees Cook
2013-12-17 11:29 ` 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=52963223.9080701@zytor.com \
--to=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=keescook@chromium.org \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux@arm.linux.org.uk \
--cc=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=nicolas.pitre@linaro.org \
--cc=olofj@chromium.org \
--cc=shawn.guo@linaro.org \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=x86@kernel.org \
/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