linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] modpost: check for static EXPORT

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: <65ea1c44-ac7f-b63f-8ba0-85bb12349383@linux.com>
Date:   Mon, 29 Jul 2019 15:52:15 +0300
From:   Denis Efremov <efremov@...ux.com>
To:     Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
Cc:     Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@...ionext.com>,
        Michal Marek <michal.lkml@...kovi.net>,
        Emil Velikov <emil.l.velikov@...il.com>,
        linux-kbuild@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] modpost: check for static EXPORT_SYMBOL* functions

On 7/29/19 3:40 PM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi Denis,
> 
> On Mon, 29 Jul 2019 12:16:29 +0300 Denis Efremov <efremov@...ux.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Just a reminder that some of us (just me?) do well over 100+ builds per
>>> day ...  if this can be optimised some what that would be good.  
>>
>> These measurements for the worst case (allmodconfig). Is it possible to 
>> measure the slowdown in your case? How it will perform on your typical 
>> workflow?
> 
> I did 3 x86_64 allmodconfig builds without and with the patch (I do
> -j 80 powerpc64 le hosted cross builds) and it doesn't look like the
> patch has much impact at all.
> 
> Without the patch:
> 
> real	8m41.390s user	587m25.249s sys	22m0.411s
> real	8m40.100s user	587m32.148s sys	21m58.419s
> real	8m40.084s user	587m25.311s sys	22m2.794s
> 
> With the patch:
> 
> real	8m40.351s user	587m21.819s sys	21m57.389s
> real	8m40.868s user	587m23.730s sys	21m58.737s
> real	8m40.970s user	587m22.525s sys	22m2.467s
> 
> I do other builds as well, but that is the biggest, so actually looks
> ok.
> 

Is it worth to include your measurements instead of mine in the commit
description? Maybe the note about performance downgrade could be omitted
at all in this case?

Denis