[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20080709201501.GF14009@elte.hu>
Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2008 22:15:01 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>
Cc: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
Mike Travis <travis@....com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux-foundation.org>,
Jack Steiner <steiner@....com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC 00/15] x86_64: Optimize percpu accesses
* Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org> wrote:
>> Further -fstack-protector-all only seems to detect against buffer
>> overflows and thus corruption of the stack. Not stack overflows. So
>> it doesn't appear especially useful.
>
> It's a bit useful. But at the cost of preventing a pile of more
> useful unification work, not to mention making all access to per-cpu
> variables more expensive.
well, stackprotector is near zero maintenance trouble. It mostly binds
in places that are fundamentally non-unifiable anyway. (nobody is going
to unify the assembly code in switch_to())
i had zero-based percpu problems (early crashes) with a 4.2.3 gcc that
had --fstack-protect compiled out, so there's no connection there.
In its fixed form in tip/core/stackprotector it can catch the splice
exploit which makes it quite a bit useful. It would be rather silly to
not offer that feature.
Ingo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists