linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] X86-32: Let gcc decide whether to inline memcpy was Re: New x86 warning

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20090422220428.GE13896@one.firstfloor.org>
Date:	Thu, 23 Apr 2009 00:04:28 +0200
From:	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
To:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Jeff Garzik <jeff@...zik.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, x86@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] X86-32: Let gcc decide whether to inline memcpy was Re: New x86 warning

> > Quick test here:
> 
> How about you just compile the kernel with gcc-3.2 and compare the number 
> of calls to memcpy before-and-after instead? That's the real test.

I waited over 10 minutes for the full vmlinux objdumps to finish. sorry lost
patience. If someone has a fast disassembler we can try it. I'll leave
them running over night, maybe there are exact numbers tomorrow.

But from a quick check (find -name '*.o' | xargs nm | grep memcpy) there are
very little files which call it with the patch, so there's some
evidence that there isn't a dramatic increase.

-Andi


-- 
ak@...ux.intel.com -- Speaking for myself only.
--
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/