* Re: x86: Remove STACKPROTECTOR_ALL
[not found] <200911021859.nA2Ix4cB023712@hera.kernel.org>
@ 2009-11-10 22:23 ` Thomas Backlund
2009-12-05 19:58 ` [stable] " Greg KH
0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread
From: Thomas Backlund @ 2009-11-10 22:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Linux Kernel Mailing List; +Cc: stable
I think this one should go to 2.6.31.x too ...
> Gitweb: http://git.kernel.org/linus/14a3f40aafacde1dfd6912327ae14df4baf10304
> Commit: 14a3f40aafacde1dfd6912327ae14df4baf10304
> Parent: 02dd0a0613e0d84c7dd8315e3fe6204d005b7c79
> Author: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@infradead.org>
> AuthorDate: Fri Oct 23 07:31:01 2009 -0700
> Committer: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
> CommitDate: Fri Oct 23 16:35:23 2009 +0200
>
> x86: Remove STACKPROTECTOR_ALL
>
> STACKPROTECTOR_ALL has a really high overhead (runtime and stack
> footprint) and is not really worth it protection wise (the
> normal STACKPROTECTOR is in effect for all functions with
> buffers already), so lets just remove the option entirely.
>
> Reported-by: Dave Jones <davej@redhat.com>
> Reported-by: Chuck Ebbert <cebbert@redhat.com>
> Signed-off-by: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@linux.intel.com>
> Cc: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@redhat.com>
> LKML-Reference: <20091023073101.3dce4ebb@infradead.org>
> Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
> ---
> arch/x86/Kconfig | 4 ----
> arch/x86/Makefile | 1 -
> 2 files changed, 0 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/x86/Kconfig b/arch/x86/Kconfig
> index 07e0114..72ace95 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/Kconfig
> +++ b/arch/x86/Kconfig
> @@ -1443,12 +1443,8 @@ config SECCOMP
>
> If unsure, say Y. Only embedded should say N here.
>
> -config CC_STACKPROTECTOR_ALL
> - bool
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread* Re: [stable] x86: Remove STACKPROTECTOR_ALL
2009-11-10 22:23 ` x86: Remove STACKPROTECTOR_ALL Thomas Backlund
@ 2009-12-05 19:58 ` Greg KH
2009-12-06 23:24 ` Thomas Backlund
0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread
From: Greg KH @ 2009-12-05 19:58 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Thomas Backlund; +Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List, stable
On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 12:23:16AM +0200, Thomas Backlund wrote:
> I think this one should go to 2.6.31.x too ...
>
> > Gitweb: http://git.kernel.org/linus/14a3f40aafacde1dfd6912327ae14df4baf10304
> > Commit: 14a3f40aafacde1dfd6912327ae14df4baf10304
> > Parent: 02dd0a0613e0d84c7dd8315e3fe6204d005b7c79
> > Author: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@infradead.org>
> > AuthorDate: Fri Oct 23 07:31:01 2009 -0700
> > Committer: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
> > CommitDate: Fri Oct 23 16:35:23 2009 +0200
> >
> > x86: Remove STACKPROTECTOR_ALL
> >
> > STACKPROTECTOR_ALL has a really high overhead (runtime and stack
> > footprint) and is not really worth it protection wise (the
> > normal STACKPROTECTOR is in effect for all functions with
> > buffers already), so lets just remove the option entirely.
> >
> > Reported-by: Dave Jones <davej@redhat.com>
> > Reported-by: Chuck Ebbert <cebbert@redhat.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@linux.intel.com>
> > Cc: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@redhat.com>
> > LKML-Reference: <20091023073101.3dce4ebb@infradead.org>
> > Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
It doesn't really "fix" anything, so I'd prefer not too.
thanks,
greg k-h
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: [stable] x86: Remove STACKPROTECTOR_ALL
2009-12-05 19:58 ` [stable] " Greg KH
@ 2009-12-06 23:24 ` Thomas Backlund
0 siblings, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: Thomas Backlund @ 2009-12-06 23:24 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Greg KH; +Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List, stable
Greg KH skrev:
> On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 12:23:16AM +0200, Thomas Backlund wrote:
>> I think this one should go to 2.6.31.x too ...
>>
>>> Gitweb: http://git.kernel.org/linus/14a3f40aafacde1dfd6912327ae14df4baf10304
>>> Commit: 14a3f40aafacde1dfd6912327ae14df4baf10304
>>> Parent: 02dd0a0613e0d84c7dd8315e3fe6204d005b7c79
>>> Author: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@infradead.org>
>>> AuthorDate: Fri Oct 23 07:31:01 2009 -0700
>>> Committer: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
>>> CommitDate: Fri Oct 23 16:35:23 2009 +0200
>>>
>>> x86: Remove STACKPROTECTOR_ALL
>>>
>>> STACKPROTECTOR_ALL has a really high overhead (runtime and stack
>>> footprint) and is not really worth it protection wise (the
>>> normal STACKPROTECTOR is in effect for all functions with
>>> buffers already), so lets just remove the option entirely.
>>>
>>> Reported-by: Dave Jones <davej@redhat.com>
>>> Reported-by: Chuck Ebbert <cebbert@redhat.com>
>>> Signed-off-by: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@linux.intel.com>
>>> Cc: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@redhat.com>
>>> LKML-Reference: <20091023073101.3dce4ebb@infradead.org>
>>> Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
>
> It doesn't really "fix" anything, so I'd prefer not too.
>
The reason for I suggested it was that is's supposed to remove some
bloating, and reportedly xfs from blowing up:
http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=125614028227106&w=2
But anyway, it's your call...
--
Thomas
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2009-12-06 23:49 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
[not found] <200911021859.nA2Ix4cB023712@hera.kernel.org>
2009-11-10 22:23 ` x86: Remove STACKPROTECTOR_ALL Thomas Backlund
2009-12-05 19:58 ` [stable] " Greg KH
2009-12-06 23:24 ` Thomas Backlund
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
Powered by JetHome