linux-kernel - Re: [PATCHv3 01/29] perf tools: Remove stackprotector feature check

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: <20131201122129.GA12521@gmail.com>
Date:	Sun, 1 Dec 2013 13:21:29 +0100
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
To:	Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>
Cc:	Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...stprotocols.net>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Corey Ashford <cjashfor@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>,
	Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
	David Ahern <dsahern@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCHv3 01/29] perf tools: Remove stackprotector feature check


* Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com> wrote:

> On Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 03:34:39PM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> > Em Thu, Nov 28, 2013 at 12:33:00PM +0100, Jiri Olsa escreveu:
> > > We use -fstack-protector-all option to enable stack protecting
> > > for all available functions. There's no reason for enabling
> > > -Wstack-protector to get warning for unprotected functions.
> > > 
> > > Removing stackprotector feature check which was used to
> > > enable the -Wstack-protector option.
> > 
> > Doesn't applies to my perf/core branch.
> 
> yep, that's that libunwind stuff messing up ;-)
> 
> attaching v3, I could resend whole rebased patchset if
> needed.. I also updated my perf/core_plugins branch
> 
> thanks,
> jirka
> 
> 
> ---
> We use -fstack-protector-all option to enable stack protecting
> for all available functions. There's no reason for enabling
> -Wstack-protector to get warning for unprotected functions.
> 
> Removing stackprotector feature check which was used to
> enable the -Wstack-protector option.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>
> Cc: Corey Ashford <cjashfor@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
> Cc: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
> Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
> Cc: Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>
> Cc: Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>
> Cc: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
> Cc: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...hat.com>
> Cc: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
> Cc: David Ahern <dsahern@...il.com>
> ---
>  tools/perf/config/Makefile                             | 5 -----
>  tools/perf/config/feature-checks/Makefile              | 6 +-----
>  tools/perf/config/feature-checks/test-stackprotector.c | 6 ------
>  3 files changed, 1 insertion(+), 16 deletions(-)
>  delete mode 100644 tools/perf/config/feature-checks/test-stackprotector.c

Acked-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>

This should also speed up the feature tests by about 10-20 msecs in 
the test-all case.

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/