[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4AA034FB.1030400@goop.org>
Date: Thu, 03 Sep 2009 14:28:27 -0700
From: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>
To: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
CC: mingo@...hat.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
jeremy.fitzhardinge@...rix.com, stable@...nel.org,
tglx@...utronix.de, mingo@...e.hu,
linux-tip-commits@...r.kernel.org, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [tip:x86/asm] x86/i386: Make sure stack-protector segment base
is cache aligned
On 09/03/09 14:15, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> On 09/03/2009 01:45 PM, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
>
>> Two problems:
>>
>> * gcc generates %gs: references for stack-protector, but we use %fs
>> for percpu data (because restoring %fs is faster if it's a null
>> selector; TLS uses %gs). I guess we could use %fs if
>> !CONFIG_CC_STACKPROTECTOR, or %gs if we are using it (though that
>> has some fiddly ramifications for things like ptrace).
>>
> Well, by touching two segments we're getting the worst of both worlds,
> so at least assuming some significant number of real-world deployments
> use CC_STACKPROTECTOR, we really don't want to pessimize that case too much.
>
I'm assuming that stack-protector has fairly serious performance impact
anyway, so a bit of extra entry/exit cost is acceptable. But I agree
that there's no point in making it gratuitously bad.
J
--
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