linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] [v3] warn on performance-impacting configs aka. TAINT

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]

Date:	Fri, 22 Aug 2014 09:45:22 -0700
From:	Dave Hansen <dave@...1.net>
To:	Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>
CC:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com,
	peterz@...radead.org, mingo@...hat.com, ak@...ux.intel.com,
	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, cl@...ux.com, penberg@...nel.org,
	linux-mm@...ck.org, kirill@...temov.name, lauraa@...eaurora.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] [v3] warn on performance-impacting configs aka. TAINT_PERFORMANCE

On 08/22/2014 09:32 AM, Tim Chen wrote:
>> > +#ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_OBJECTS_FREE
>> > +	"DEBUG_OBJECTS_FREE",
>> > +#endif
>> > +#ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_KMEMLEAK
>> > +	"DEBUG_KMEMLEAK",
>> > +#endif
>> > +#ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_PAGEALLOC
>> > +	"DEBUG_PAGEALLOC",
> I think coverage profiling also impact performance.
> So I sould also put CONFIG_GCOV_KERNEL in the list.

Would CONFIG_GCOV_PROFILE_ALL be the better one to check?  With plain
GCOV_KERNEL, I don't think we will, by default, put the coverage
information in any files and slow them down.
--
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/