linux-kernel - Re: Unnecessary overhead with stack protector.

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: <20091021170835.6cd9bd52@katamari.usersys.redhat.com>
Date:	Wed, 21 Oct 2009 17:08:35 -0400
From:	Chuck Ebbert <cebbert@...hat.com>
To:	Eric Sandeen <sandeen@...hat.com>
Cc:	Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>,
	Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, esandeen@...hat.com,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Subject: Re: Unnecessary overhead with stack protector.

On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 14:24:18 -0500
Eric Sandeen <sandeen@...hat.com> wrote:

> 
> Forgive me if I'm not using the right tools to look, but it seems to me
> that in the aggregate, CC_STACKPROTECTOR_ALL has a pretty big impact.

FWIW, I think we'll end up either disabling the stackprotector completely
in Fedora, or at least reverting the patch that adds all that overhead.
--
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/