Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2017 15:11:57 +0200 From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> To: Alexander Popov <alex.popov@...ux.com> Cc: kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com, keescook@...omium.org, pageexec@...email.hu, spender@...ecurity.net, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>, tycho@...ker.com, Laura Abbott <labbott@...hat.com>, Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>, Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, "H . Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, x86@...nel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC v5 0/5] Introduce the STACKLEAK feature and a test for it On Sun, Oct 22, 2017 at 03:22:48AM +0300, Alexander Popov wrote: > These numbers were obtained for the 4th version of the patch series. > > Size of vmlinux (x86_64_defconfig): > file size: > - STACKLEAK disabled: 35014784 bytes > - STACKLEAK enabled: 35044952 bytes (+0.086%) > .text section size (calculated by size utility): > - STACKLEAK disabled: 10752983 > - STACKLEAK enabled: 11062221 (+2.876%) Why no runtime costs? This should not be hard to measure. > Further work > ============= > > - Rewrite erase_kstack() in C (if Ingo Molnar insists). Aside from legacy, is there any sane reason that stuff is in ASM? That is, I too will insist it being in C unless you can provide good arguments on why it needs be asm. All it does is memzero() right? And I would think architectures already have fairly optimized implementations of that around.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use? Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia and check out these guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.