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
| ||
|
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2017 17:47:59 -0500 From: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com> To: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org> 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) On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 03:30:31PM -0700, Andi Kleen wrote: > 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. Improved speed, reliability, maintainability. Are those not advantages? -- Josh
Powered by blists - more mailing lists