On Thu, Jun 21, 2018 at 5:10 PM kernel test robot <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> FYI, we noticed a -5.6% regression of netperf.Throughput_total_tps due to
> commit 050e9b ("Kbuild: rename CC_STACKPROTECTOR[_STRONG] config variables")
That's perhaps a surprisingly large cost to stack protector, but you
did move from "no stack protector at all":
> $ grep STACKPROTECTOR config-4.17.0-11782-gbe779f0
> CONFIG_HAVE_CC_STACKPROTECTOR=y
> CONFIG_CC_HAS_STACKPROTECTOR_NONE=y
> # CONFIG_CC_STACKPROTECTOR is not set
> CONFIG_CC_HAS_SANE_STACKPROTECTOR=y
To having the *strong* stack protector enabled:
> $ grep STACKPROTECTOR config-4.17.0-11783-g050e9baa
> CONFIG_HAVE_CC_STACKPROTECTOR=y
> CONFIG_CC_HAS_STACKPROTECTOR_NONE=y
> CONFIG_STACKPROTECTOR=y
> CONFIG_STACKPROTECTOR_STRONG=y
> CONFIG_CC_HAS_SANE_STACKPROTECTOR=y
so you're testing the "no overhead" case to the "worst overhead" case.
Linus
