Subject: Re: ssp and gcc-4.1
To: None <email@example.com>
From: Jason Thorpe <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 11/07/2006 10:09:53
On Nov 6, 2006, at 5:39 PM, Thor Lancelot Simon wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 07, 2006 at 02:06:54AM +0200, Mindaugas wrote:
>> Great work, Christos!
>>> - malloc vs alloca performance
>> Well, alloca performs much better, but the main problem, that it is
>> supported by all platforms, is it?
> I'm not sure what you're getting at. It is certainly the case that we
> conform to the relevant standards by supplying alloca() on all
Uh, as far as I know, there are NO relevant standards that describe
> Most of the problematic code in our kernel is actually calling GCC's
> __builtin_alloca() by way of variable size array declarations. Some
> it will be quite tricky to replace with malloc -- e.g. because it is
> in the VM system itself, or because it is called from interrupt
> but has no graceful way to report an allocation failure.
...and calling alloca() directly also results in a __builtin_alloca()
most of the time (i.e. unless you've disabled with with a -std=c99
flag to GCC). alloca(3) really needs to coordinate with the compiler,
because of what it does.
Now, one would think that __builtin_alloca() would be OK with ssp --
after all, the compiler provides both, right?