[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20131127112731.GA10435@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2013 12:27:32 +0100
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
To: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Nicolas Pitre <nicolas.pitre@...aro.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Russell King <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, x86@...nel.org,
Shawn Guo <shawn.guo@...aro.org>,
Olof Johansson <olofj@...omium.org>,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] use -fstack-protector-strong
* Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org> wrote:
> On a defconfig x86_64 build (with CONFIG_CC_STACKPROTECTOR enabled), the
> delta in size is just under 9% larger:
>
> -rwxrwxr-x 1 kees kees 22134340 Nov 26 10:28 vmlinux.gcc-4.8
> -rwxrwxr-x 1 kees kees 22123870 Nov 26 10:40 vmlinux.gcc-4.9
> -rwxrwxr-x 1 kees kees 24225118 Nov 26 10:42 vmlinux.gcc-4.9+strong
Please run it through 'size' so that we know the real text size
increases.
If the cost of -fstack-protector-strong is really +9% in kernel text
size then that's rather significant!
If this option blows up our performance critical codepaths as well
then this will likely cause a runtime slowdown as well, in addition to
the increase in I$ footprint. That needs to be measured.
CONFIG_CC_STACKPROTECTOR=y is relatively cheap today. For example on
x86-64 defconfig:
text data bss dec filename
11378972 1455056 1191936 14025964 vmlinux # CONFIG_CC_STACKPROTECTOR is not set
11420243 1455056 1191936 14067235 vmlinux CONFIG_CC_STACKPROTECTOR=y
that's a +0.3% cost currently.
Thanks,
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