From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:46867)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <prvs=1574f6104=snoonan@amazon.com>)
	id 1WTb9F-0000md-BZ
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 28 Mar 2014 14:05:03 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <prvs=1574f6104=snoonan@amazon.com>)
	id 1WTb99-0007bE-7F
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 28 Mar 2014 14:04:57 -0400
Received: from smtp-fw-2101.amazon.com ([72.21.196.25]:14379)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <prvs=1574f6104=snoonan@amazon.com>)
	id 1WTb99-0007au-2Y
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 28 Mar 2014 14:04:51 -0400
From: "Noonan, Steven" <snoonan@amazon.com>
Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2014 18:04:37 +0000
Message-ID: <CF5B0729.21A50%snoonan@amazon.com>
References: <1396023542-19667-1-git-send-email-pbonzini@redhat.com>
	<CABoDooO=rofd1xs10uoCgvkpBermR+wemxOOpmFdZWBvrEVizA@mail.gmail.com>
	<5335B68F.8050504@redhat.com>
In-Reply-To: <5335B68F.8050504@redhat.com>
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <6743888D3124794296CF781C6C780A09@ant.amazon.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH for-2.0] configure: add option to disable
 -fstack-protector flags
List-Id: <qemu-devel.nongnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/options/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>, Laurent Desnogues <laurent.desnogues@gmail.com>
Cc: Steven Noonan <steven@uplinklabs.net>, "qemu-devel@nongnu.org" <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>, "Liguori,
	Anthony" <aliguori@amazon.com>

On 3/28/14, 10:51 AM, "Paolo Bonzini" <pbonzini@redhat.com> wrote:

>Il 28/03/2014 18:41, Laurent Desnogues ha scritto:
>>> > +  gcc_flags=3D"-fstack-protector-strong -fstack-protector-all"
>>> > +  for flag in $gcc_flags; do
>>> > +    if compile_prog "-Werror $flag" "" ; then
>>> > +      QEMU_CFLAGS=3D"$QEMU_CFLAGS $flag"
>>> > +      LIBTOOLFLAGS=3D"$LIBTOOLFLAGS -Wc,$flag"
>>> > +      break
>>> > +    fi
>>> > +  done
>>> >  fi
>> My understanding is that -fstack-protector, -fstack-protector-strong,
>> and -fstack-protector-all are strictly ordered in terms of the number
>> of functions that are checked, so you have changed the default
>> behavior to check less functions for compilers that support
>> -fstack-protector-strong.  Is that what you had in mind?
>
>Yes.  -fstack-protector-all adds protection in places where it doesn't
>really matter, and that's why it has such a high cost.

Correct, -fstack-protector-all was too high impact. Sadly
-fstack-protector-strong seems to only exist in RedHat-provided compilers,
which I don't always use -- thus the new default this change provides
doesn't really help, so I'd need to just do 'configure
--disable-stack-protector' to avoid the performance penalty.