mesos-reviews mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From James Peach <jpe...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Review Request 52695: Harden libprocess
Date Wed, 02 Nov 2016 17:44:13 GMT


> On Nov. 2, 2016, 9:32 a.m., Benjamin Bannier wrote:
> > 3rdparty/libprocess/Makefile.am, line 30
> > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/52695/diff/4/?file=1551006#file1551006line30>
> >
> >     I am not a big fan of unconditionally omitting frame pointers as this gives
the optimizer one less register to work with. Unfortunately one cannot easily tell the actual
impact of this from the info here. Is this strictly needed here or just nice to have?

The performance benefit of omitting frame pointers is likely to be marginal on x64_64, if
it is a win at all. The rationale for adding this is that it makes stack walking reliable
in all cases, so debugability is improved and you can get reasonable results when uting `perf`.
Since most users will build with default options I suggested to Aaron that we should make
it the default.


- James


-----------------------------------------------------------
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