https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112470
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P1 |P2
--- Comment #15 from Richard
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112470
--- Comment #14 from Xi Ruoyao ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #13)
> So, is there anything we should do about this PR, or just close it as
> necessary outcome of trying to be more secure when user asked for it?
At least it
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112470
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112470
Xi Ruoyao changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||xry111 at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #12
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112470
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112470
--- Comment #10 from Andrew Pinski ---
The instruction increase is 2:
sub sp, sp, #128
...
stp x29, x30, [sp, 112]
vs:
stp x29, x30, [sp, -128]!
and
ldp x29, x30, [sp, 112]
...
add
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112470
--- Comment #9 from Andrew Pinski ---
Created attachment 56921
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=56921=edit
Simple testcase
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112470
--- Comment #8 from John Dong ---
(In reply to Richard Sandiford from comment #7)
> (In reply to John Dong from comment #6)
> > For applications without stack protection, there is no difference because
> > the function stack frame not changed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112470
--- Comment #7 from Richard Sandiford ---
(In reply to John Dong from comment #6)
> For applications without stack protection, there is no difference because
> the function stack frame not changed when aarch64_save_regs_above_locals_p
> is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112470
--- Comment #6 from John Dong ---
(In reply to Richard Sandiford from comment #5)
> Could you quantify the performance impact that you're seeing? Figures
> relative to no protection and to unpatched -fstack-protector-strong would be
> useful.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112470
--- Comment #5 from Richard Sandiford ---
Could you quantify the performance impact that you're seeing? Figures relative
to no protection and to unpatched -fstack-protector-strong would be useful.
-fstack-protector-strong adds a large
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112470
--- Comment #4 from Sam James ---
(In reply to John Dong from comment #3)
> ping ?
You posted the bug after the close of business on Friday (end of the week) and
the next week is just starting now on Monday. Europe is waking up now and the
US
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112470
--- Comment #3 from John Dong ---
(In reply to John Dong from comment #0)
> Hi, after the CVE-2023-4039 patch is installed, the code size and
> performance are affected after stack protection is enabled.
> Refer to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112470
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |critical
Priority|P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112470
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[AARCH64] stack-protector |[11/12/13/14 regression]
15 matches
Mail list logo