Re: [PATCH v2] use -fstack-protector-strong

[Kees Cook]

On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 9:55 AM, H. Peter Anvin <hpa@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 11/27/2013 09:54 AM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>>>
>>> Looks to be 2% for defconfig. That's way better. Shall I send a v3?
>>
>> Well, it's better than 9%, but still almost an order of magnitude
>> higher than the cost is today, and a lot of distros have
>> CONFIG_CC_STACKPROTECTOR=y.
>>
>> So it would be nice to measure how much the instruction count goes up
>> in some realistic system-bound test. How much does something like
>> kernel/built-in.o increase, as per 'size' output?

   text    data     bss     dec     hex filename
 929611   90851  594496 1614958  18a46e built-in.o-gcc-4.9
 954648   90851  594496 1639995  19063b built-in.o-gcc-4.9+strong

Looks like 3% for defconfg + CONFIG_CC_STACKPROTECTOR

>
> Do we need CONFIG_CC_STACKPROTECTOR_STRONG?

I'm hoping to avoid this since nearly anyone using CC_STACKPROTECTOR
would want strong added, but as a fallback, I'm happy to implement it
as a separate config item.

-Kees

-- 
Kees Cook
Chrome OS Security
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/