[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]
Re: Stack Smash Protection disabled (was HEADS-UP: Stack Smash Protection enabled by default for amd64 and i386)
On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 05:01:34AM +0000, David Holland wrote:
> It's been noted elsewhere that theoretically the overhead of SSP is
> not supposed to be 5%; it's supposed to be negligible. Where is this
> 5% overhead coming from?
One possibility is our non-default settings for the stack protector. We
tell GCC to protect access to all objects -- not just objects large enough
to contain an address, which is the default.
It's possible this is dramatically slowing down some bytewise operation
somewhere which is commonly called.
Main Index |
Thread Index |