[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2018 13:14:58 +0000
From: David Laight <David.Laight@...LAB.COM>
To: "'kpark3469@...il.com'" <kpark3469@...il.com>,
"kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com" <kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com>
CC: "catalin.marinas@....com" <catalin.marinas@....com>,
"keescook@...omium.org" <keescook@...omium.org>, "will.deacon@....com"
<will.deacon@....com>, "mark.rutland@....com" <mark.rutland@....com>,
"james.morse@....com" <james.morse@....com>, "panand@...hat.com"
<panand@...hat.com>, "keun-o.park@...kmatter.ae" <keun-o.park@...kmatter.ae>,
"psodagud@...eaurora.org" <psodagud@...eaurora.org>, "jpoimboe@...hat.com"
<jpoimboe@...hat.com>, "mingo@...nel.org" <mingo@...nel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH v3 3/3] x86: usercopy: reimplement
arch_within_stack_frames with unwinder
From: kpark3469@...il.com
> Sent: 09 April 2018 12:59
>
> The old arch_within_stack_frames which used the frame pointer is
> now reimplemented to use frame pointer unwinder apis. So the main
> functionality is same as before.
How much slower does this make the code?
Following stack frames using %bp is reasonably quick.
I can't imagine some of the other unwinder APIs being any where
near that fast.
While fine for fault tracebacks, using them during usercopy
is likely to have measurable performance impact.
David
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.
