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 Sep 2017 18:33:30 -0700
From:   Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
To:     Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Cc:     Colin Ian King <colin.king@...onical.com>,
        Christophe JAILLET <christophe.jaillet@...adoo.fr>,
        Sven Schmidt <4sschmid@...ormatik.uni-hamburg.de>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] lib/lz4: make arrays static const, reduces object code
 size

On Fri, 2017-09-22 at 23:39 +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 22, 2017 at 9:17 PM, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de> wrote:
> > On Fri, Sep 22, 2017 at 7:21 PM, Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com> wrote:
> > > On Fri, 2017-09-22 at 09:48 +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Sep 22, 2017 at 1:11 AM, Colin Ian King
> > > >    text    data     bss     dec     hex filename
> > > >   18220     176       0   18396    47dc build/tmp/lib/lz4/lz4_decompress-after.o
> > > >   22297       0       0   22297    5719 build/tmp/lib/lz4/lz4_decompress-before.o
> > > 
> > > Perhaps not so much a gcc bug as an opportunity
> > > for gcc to add an additional optimization.
> > > 
> > > gcc would have to verify that the const array is
> > > not initialized with some variable or argument like:
> > > 
> > > int foo(int a)
> > > {
> > >         const int array[] = {1, a};
> > >         ...
> > > }
> > 
> > It depends. With a 10KB different in .text size, my guess is that this
> > is a case where gcc does the right optimization in principle, but
> > fails to do what was intended in some corner cases.
> 
> I found the problem: "gcc -fsanitze=kernel-address --param asan-stack=1"
> produces lots of expensive checks here with gcc-5 or higher.
> 
> Disabling it makes a big difference:
> 
> upstream:
> gcc-7.0.0 --fsanitze=kernel-address --param asan-stack=1: 31789 bytes
> gcc-7.0.0: 16535 bytes
> 
> patched:
> gcc-7.0.0 --fsanitze=kernel-address --param asan-stack=1: 20351 bytes
> gcc-7.0.0: 14490 bytes

I think you are looking at a different issue.

There seems still a difference in size between
current and Colin's patch in compiled object size.



>       Arnd

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ