From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-lj1-f171.google.com (mail-lj1-f171.google.com [209.85.208.171]) by gnuweeb.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 37D777ED80 for ; Thu, 24 Feb 2022 22:34:10 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=gnuweeb.org; s=default; t=1645742050; bh=H3RncMTCXZsAX8O8FnhD689soGg5r0sYGE80H3BWedU=; h=References:In-Reply-To:From:Date:Subject:To:Cc:From; b=RglzdcLX6oxjkuIbQMGk/ft05x/gRgoOCW8No5JTFz2oPucUW/sflgswPBABdbC/g CrigWDqaYgexY1NoX9CFkTwQA28La0p+vsNO14mPa6Rb35xSYNvZwsbffLQ3a0vCyR LMrV3+kT9VTIyWC9x77njMQ+e+DgKONk/Pe3vb8VBzwA7PIzmFJbaIjKy/bWozpwgw NfT/vZj/6DuJeZUQfnaKBwqAZzwe3ouewNILpTJXk8P7q7l9We7Gx94zQSUEj8CnfO eN26hNsWlrZwXR6ZZrSUPr+ydg6MsxzRaqf4h9o6qae+2raWBxMz+JsR+eKOaQ29+Z wVCaV+doj75mA== Received: by mail-lj1-f171.google.com with SMTP id 29so4932111ljv.10 for ; Thu, 24 Feb 2022 14:34:10 -0800 (PST) X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533f+xzSRHHtEFmtkkEfnmnbIu4iGZqDjuyXZnrbN1hX8LPfKIMq /ZHA+C6Z2ndkGK3Ti1595Mmty1hVFk4hmZuNbwU= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwQQlbvhRh5NTWjJ+X9GCp4g1f01QcErxKoW7JvH9Anw/EpxHISja0qIVNsEvQcMHF4WGOtt2XIlOC5XQVzHJk= X-Received: by 2002:a2e:b794:0:b0:246:4196:9c0a with SMTP id n20-20020a2eb794000000b0024641969c0amr3372514ljo.2.1645742048193; Thu, 24 Feb 2022 14:34:08 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20220224222427.66206-1-ammarfaizi2@gnuweeb.org> In-Reply-To: <20220224222427.66206-1-ammarfaizi2@gnuweeb.org> From: Alviro Iskandar Setiawan Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2022 05:33:56 +0700 X-Gmail-Original-Message-ID: Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH liburing v1] src/Makefile: Don't use stack protector for all builds by default To: Ammar Faizi Cc: Jens Axboe , Nugra , "GNU/Weeb Mailing List" , Tea Inside Mailing List , io-uring Mailing List Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" List-Id: On Fri, Feb 25, 2022 at 5:25 AM Ammar Faizi wrote: > Stack protector adds extra mov, extra stack allocation and extra branch > to save and validate the stack canary. While this feature could be > useful to detect stack corruption in some scenarios, it is not really > needed for liburing which is simple enough to review. > > Good code shouldn't corrupt the stack. We don't need this extra > checking at the moment. Just for comparison, let's take a hot function > __io_uring_get_cqe. Yes, I don't see any harm in removing the stack protector here. Reviewed-by: Alviro Iskandar Setiawan -- Viro