linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 00/10] x86: ORC unwinder (previously undwarf)

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: <87wp7dmgoo.fsf@firstfloor.org>
Date:   Wed, 12 Jul 2017 15:30:31 -0700
From:   Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
To:     Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>
Cc:     x86@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        live-patching@...r.kernel.org,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>, Jiri Slaby <jslaby@...e.cz>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 00/10] x86: ORC unwinder (previously undwarf)

Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com> writes:
>
> The ORC data format does have a few downsides compared to DWARF.  The
> ORC unwind tables take up ~1MB more memory than DWARF eh_frame tables.
>
Can we have an option to just use dwarf instead? For people
who don't want to waste a MB+ to solve a problem that doesn't
exist (as proven by many years of opensuse kernel experience)

As far as I can tell this whole thing has only downsides compared
to the dwarf unwinder that was earlier proposed. I don't see
a single advantage.

-Andi