linux-kernel - Re: [lkp-robot] [Kbuild] 050e9baa9d: netperf.Throughput_total

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: <87muvoh7fy.fsf@yhuang-dev.intel.com>
Date:   Thu, 21 Jun 2018 16:25:53 +0800
From:   "Huang\, Ying" <ying.huang@...el.com>
To:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:     kernel test robot <xiaolong.ye@...el.com>,
        Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@...ionext.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        LKP <lkp@...org>, Aaron Lu <aaron.lu@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [lkp-robot] [Kbuild] 050e9baa9d: netperf.Throughput_total_tps -5.6% regression (FYI)

Hi, Linus,

Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> writes:

> On Thu, Jun 21, 2018 at 5:10 PM kernel test robot <xiaolong.ye@...el.com> wrote:
>>
>> FYI, we noticed a -5.6% regression of netperf.Throughput_total_tps
>> due to commit 050e9b ("Kbuild: rename CC_STACKPROTECTOR[_STRONG]
>> config variables")
>
> That's perhaps a surprisingly large cost to stack protector, but you
> did move from "no stack protector at all":
>
>> $ grep STACKPROTECTOR config-4.17.0-11782-gbe779f0
>> CONFIG_HAVE_CC_STACKPROTECTOR=y
>> CONFIG_CC_HAS_STACKPROTECTOR_NONE=y
>> # CONFIG_CC_STACKPROTECTOR is not set
>> CONFIG_CC_HAS_SANE_STACKPROTECTOR=y
>
> To having the *strong* stack protector enabled:
>
>> $ grep STACKPROTECTOR config-4.17.0-11783-g050e9baa
>> CONFIG_HAVE_CC_STACKPROTECTOR=y
>> CONFIG_CC_HAS_STACKPROTECTOR_NONE=y
>> CONFIG_STACKPROTECTOR=y
>> CONFIG_STACKPROTECTOR_STRONG=y
>> CONFIG_CC_HAS_SANE_STACKPROTECTOR=y
>
> so you're testing the "no overhead" case to the "worst overhead" case.

Do you have interest in some other comparison?

Best Regards,
Huang, Ying