mesos-reviews mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Aaron Wood <aaron.w...@verizon.com>
Subject Re: Review Request 52695: Harden libprocess
Date Wed, 02 Nov 2016 15:21:48 GMT


> On Nov. 2, 2016, 9:32 a.m., Benjamin Bannier wrote:
> > 3rdparty/libprocess/Makefile.am, line 29
> > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/52695/diff/4/?file=1551006#file1551006line29>
> >
> >     Let's not suppress this valid and potentially useful diagnostic for the whole
codebase. It does not trigger a hard failure anyway.

You're right, I had initially set this due to issues with the version of gmock that's used
and clang. Now that there's no `-Werror` I'll take it out.


- Aaron


-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/52695/#review154527
-----------------------------------------------------------


On Nov. 2, 2016, 3:14 p.m., Aaron Wood wrote:
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/52695/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> (Updated Nov. 2, 2016, 3:14 p.m.)
> 
> 
> Review request for mesos, James Peach, Michael Park, and Neil Conway.
> 
> 
> Bugs: MESOS-6229
>     https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-6229
> 
> 
> Repository: mesos
> 
> 
> Description
> -------
> 
> Use a default set of flags to provide additional security and hardening to libprocess.
Additionally, check and catch more warnings/errors.
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -----
> 
>   3rdparty/libprocess/Makefile.am 7131989 
>   3rdparty/libprocess/configure.ac 1644035 
>   3rdparty/libprocess/m4/ax_check_compile_flag.m4 PRE-CREATION 
> 
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/52695/diff/
> 
> 
> Testing
> -------
> 
> Compared the benchmarks with and without the flags being used. Also did a comparsion
with the flags being used with and without optimizations and without the flags being used
with and without optimizations. Overall the performance hit was very small with a 3-8% overhead
(optimizations brings this down slightly). Most benchmarks were about 5% (or less) slower.
> 
> 
> File Attachments
> ----------------
> 
> --enable-optimized with hardening applied
>   https://reviews.apache.org/media/uploaded/files/2016/11/02/875c9e6e-c73b-4e3c-8265-0f7c6dc00351__hardened-optimized.txt
> Hardening applied but no --enable-optimized
>   https://reviews.apache.org/media/uploaded/files/2016/11/02/932d28a7-2d31-471a-b438-647841a6853c__hardened-unoptimized.txt
> --enable-optimized with no hardening applied
>   https://reviews.apache.org/media/uploaded/files/2016/11/02/896944ea-9b31-4d62-b1b9-97fb4700a882__optimized.txt
> No hardening applied and no --enable-optimized
>   https://reviews.apache.org/media/uploaded/files/2016/11/02/b32667ce-3e3b-4d2b-b4f8-4c2404a0fc1c__unoptimized.txt
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Aaron Wood
> 
>


Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message