From: Kees Cook <keescook@google.com>
To: Dennis Zhou <dennisszhou@gmail.com>
Cc: Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@google.com>, Linux-MM <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
kasan-dev <kasan-dev@googlegroups.com>,
Fengguang Wu <fengguang.wu@intel.com>,
Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@gmail.com>,
Andrey Ryabinin <aryabinin@virtuozzo.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] KASAN: prohibit KASAN+STRUCTLEAK combination
Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2018 14:13:30 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAGXu5j+CnH4+6GQ4jsv=4ZZTYgh960QsV69iDpXr56FABzFE_w@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20180421210629.GA44181@big-sky.restechservices.net>
On Sat, Apr 21, 2018 at 2:06 PM, Dennis Zhou <dennisszhou@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 07:56:56AM +0200, Dmitry Vyukov wrote:
>> As a sanity check, I would count number of zeroing inserted by the
>> plugin it both cases and ensure that now it does not insert order of
>> magnitude more/less. It's easy with function calls (count them in
>> objdump output), not sure what's the easiest way to do it for inline
>> instrumentation. We could insert printf into the pass itself, but it
>> if runs before inlining and other optimization, it's not the final
>> number.
>
> I modified the structleak_plugin to count the number of initializations
> and output if the function was an inline function or not. The aggregated
> values are below.
>
> declared inline no yes
> ----------------------------------
> early_optimizations: 12168 7114
> *all_optimizations: 12554 13
>
> These numbers seem appropriate. The structleak initializes in declared
> inline functions are redundant.
Does this mean we end up with redundant initializers, or are they
optimized away in later passes?
-Kees
--
Kees Cook
Pixel Security
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-04-21 21:13 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-04-19 17:24 Dmitry Vyukov
2018-04-19 20:43 ` Kees Cook
2018-04-20 5:33 ` Dennis Zhou
2018-04-20 5:56 ` Dmitry Vyukov
2018-04-21 21:06 ` Dennis Zhou
2018-04-21 21:13 ` Kees Cook [this message]
2018-04-22 0:15 ` Dennis Zhou
2018-04-30 23:41 ` Kees Cook
2018-05-01 0:36 ` Dennis Zhou
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to='CAGXu5j+CnH4+6GQ4jsv=4ZZTYgh960QsV69iDpXr56FABzFE_w@mail.gmail.com' \
--to=keescook@google.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=aryabinin@virtuozzo.com \
--cc=dennisszhou@gmail.com \
--cc=dvyukov@google.com \
--cc=fengguang.wu@intel.com \
--cc=kasan-dev@googlegroups.com \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=sergey.senozhatsky.work@gmail.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox