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 <[email protected]>
> AuthorDate: Fri Oct 23 07:31:01 2009 -0700
> Committer: Ingo Molnar <[email protected]>
> 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 <[email protected]>
> Reported-by: Chuck Ebbert <[email protected]>
> Signed-off-by: Arjan van de Ven <[email protected]>
> Cc: Eric Sandeen <[email protected]>
> LKML-Reference: <[email protected]>
> Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <[email protected]>
> ---
> 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
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 <[email protected]>
> > AuthorDate: Fri Oct 23 07:31:01 2009 -0700
> > Committer: Ingo Molnar <[email protected]>
> > 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 <[email protected]>
> > Reported-by: Chuck Ebbert <[email protected]>
> > Signed-off-by: Arjan van de Ven <[email protected]>
> > Cc: Eric Sandeen <[email protected]>
> > LKML-Reference: <[email protected]>
> > Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <[email protected]>
It doesn't really "fix" anything, so I'd prefer not too.
thanks,
greg k-h
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 <[email protected]>
>>> AuthorDate: Fri Oct 23 07:31:01 2009 -0700
>>> Committer: Ingo Molnar <[email protected]>
>>> 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 <[email protected]>
>>> Reported-by: Chuck Ebbert <[email protected]>
>>> Signed-off-by: Arjan van de Ven <[email protected]>
>>> Cc: Eric Sandeen <[email protected]>
>>> LKML-Reference: <[email protected]>
>>> Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <[email protected]>
>
> 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