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, 9 Dec 2020 20:25:16 +0100 From: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...nel.org> To: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org> Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>, Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@...nel.org>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@...nel.org>, Michal Marek <michal.lkml@...kovi.net>, Nathan Chancellor <natechancellor@...il.com>, Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>, Marco Elver <elver@...gle.com>, Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>, Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>, George Popescu <georgepope@...roid.com>, Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>, Peter Oberparleiter <oberpar@...ux.ibm.com>, Andrey Ryabinin <aryabinin@...tuozzo.com>, clang-built-linux <clang-built-linux@...glegroups.com>, Linux Kbuild mailing list <linux-kbuild@...r.kernel.org>, "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org> Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 5/7] ubsan: Enable for all*config builds On Wed, Dec 9, 2020 at 7:46 PM Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org> wrote: > > On Thu, Dec 03, 2020 at 09:51:40AM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > > On Thu, Dec 3, 2020 at 1:44 AM Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org> wrote: > > > > > > With UBSAN_OBJECT_SIZE disabled for GCC, only UBSAN_ALIGNMENT remained > > > a noisy UBSAN option. Disable it for COMPILE_TEST so the rest of UBSAN > > > can be used for full all*config builds or other large combinations. > > > > > > Link: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/CAHk-=wgXW=YLxGN0QVpp-1w5GDd2pf1W-FqY15poKzoVfik2qA@mail.gmail.com/ > > > Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org> > > > > Have you checked if this has a notable impact on allmodconfig compile speed > > with gcc or clang? I think I've seen significant increases in build times before > > with this, but I don't remember the actual magnitude. > > > > Making it 20% slower would probably be ok, but making it twice as slow might > > be too much. > > And for Clang, it's about 7m40s before and 8m30s after, so roughly 12% slower. Ok, that doesn't sound too bad then. Arnd
Powered by blists - more mailing lists