[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20091205195852.GC21172@kroah.com>
Date: Sat, 5 Dec 2009 11:58:52 -0800
From: Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>
To: Thomas Backlund <tmb@...driva.org>
Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
stable@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [stable] x86: Remove STACKPROTECTOR_ALL
On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 12:23:16AM +0200, Thomas Backlund wrote:
> I think this one should go to 2.6.31.x too ...
>
> > Gitweb: http://git.kernel.org/linus/14a3f40aafacde1dfd6912327ae14df4baf10304
> > Commit: 14a3f40aafacde1dfd6912327ae14df4baf10304
> > Parent: 02dd0a0613e0d84c7dd8315e3fe6204d005b7c79
> > Author: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>
> > AuthorDate: Fri Oct 23 07:31:01 2009 -0700
> > Committer: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
> > CommitDate: Fri Oct 23 16:35:23 2009 +0200
> >
> > x86: Remove STACKPROTECTOR_ALL
> >
> > STACKPROTECTOR_ALL has a really high overhead (runtime and stack
> > footprint) and is not really worth it protection wise (the
> > normal STACKPROTECTOR is in effect for all functions with
> > buffers already), so lets just remove the option entirely.
> >
> > Reported-by: Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>
> > Reported-by: Chuck Ebbert <cebbert@...hat.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...ux.intel.com>
> > Cc: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@...hat.com>
> > LKML-Reference: <20091023073101.3dce4ebb@...radead.org>
> > Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
It doesn't really "fix" anything, so I'd prefer not too.
thanks,
greg k-h
--
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