Re: [tip:x86/asm] x86/i386: Make sure stack-protector segment baseis cache aligned

[Jeremy Fitzhardinge]

On 09/03/09 14:15, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> On 09/03/2009 01:45 PM, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
>   
>> Two problems:
>>
>>     * gcc generates %gs: references for stack-protector, but we use %fs
>>       for percpu data (because restoring %fs is faster if it's a null
>>       selector; TLS uses %gs).  I guess we could use %fs if
>>       !CONFIG_CC_STACKPROTECTOR, or %gs if we are using it (though that
>>       has some fiddly ramifications for things like ptrace).
>>     
> Well, by touching two segments we're getting the worst of both worlds,
> so at least assuming some significant number of real-world deployments
> use CC_STACKPROTECTOR, we really don't want to pessimize that case too much.
>   

I'm assuming that stack-protector has fairly serious performance impact
anyway, so a bit of extra entry/exit cost is acceptable.  But I agree
that there's no point in making it gratuitously bad.

    J
--
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/