Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1583195
| From | Helge Deller <deller@gmx.de> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | linux.kernel |
| Subject | Re: [PATCHv3 2/2] arch: Rename CONFIG_DEBUG_RODATA and CONFIG_DEBUG_MODULE_RONX |
| Date | 2017-02-17 09:30 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <tbM5s-1KD-9@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink) |
| References | <t81Z7-3QF-3@gated-at.bofh.it> <t81Z7-3QF-1@gated-at.bofh.it> <tbCIO-4eZ-27@gated-at.bofh.it> <tbFdD-5Q6-13@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| Organization | linux.* mail to news gateway |
On 17.02.2017 02:08, Kees Cook wrote: > On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 2:25 PM, Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz> wrote: >> Hi! >> >>> >>> -config DEBUG_RODATA >>> +config STRICT_KERNEL_RWX >>> bool "Make kernel text and rodata read-only" if ARCH_OPTIONAL_KERNEL_RWX >>> depends on ARCH_HAS_STRICT_KERNEL_RWX >>> default !ARCH_OPTIONAL_KERNEL_RWX || >> >> Debug features are expected to have runtime cost, so kconfig help is >> silent about those. But there are runtime costs, right? It would be >> nice to mention them in the help text... > > It depends on the architecture. The prior help text for arm said: > > The tradeoff is that each region is padded to section-size (1MiB) > boundaries (because their permissions are different and splitting > the 1M pages into 4K ones causes TLB performance problems), which > can waste memory. > > parisc (somewhat inaccurately) said: > > This option may have a slight performance impact because a > portion of the kernel code won't be covered by a TLB anymore. The logic on parisc is actually: If huge page support is enabled, we map 1MB pages (and behave like arm wrt alignments). If huge page support is disabled we stay at 4k/PAGE_SIZE pages (without 1M alignment). > IIUC, arm64 does what parisc is hinting at: mappings at the end are > broken down to PAGE_SIZE. On parisc we never implemented that. > On x86, IIUC, there's actually no change to > TLB performance due to how the mappings are already set up. > > I'm not sure the best way to express this in the new help text. Do you > have some suggestions on wording? Personally, I don't really think > it's worth mentioning this in Kconfig help, I agree on this. > which, in theory, is > supposed to limit how technical it gets. And I think the performance > impact is almost entirely negligible compared to the risks addressed. Helge
Back to linux.kernel | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Re: [PATCHv3 2/2] arch: Rename CONFIG_DEBUG_RODATA and CONFIG_DEBUG_MODULE_RONX Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz> - 2017-02-16 23:30 +0100
Re: [PATCHv3 2/2] arch: Rename CONFIG_DEBUG_RODATA and CONFIG_DEBUG_MODULE_RONX Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org> - 2017-02-17 02:10 +0100
Re: [PATCHv3 2/2] arch: Rename CONFIG_DEBUG_RODATA and CONFIG_DEBUG_MODULE_RONX Helge Deller <deller@gmx.de> - 2017-02-17 09:30 +0100
Re: [PATCHv3 2/2] arch: Rename CONFIG_DEBUG_RODATA and CONFIG_DEBUG_MODULE_RONX Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com> - 2017-02-17 19:30 +0100
Re: [PATCHv3 2/2] arch: Rename CONFIG_DEBUG_RODATA and CONFIG_DEBUG_MODULE_RONX Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org> - 2017-02-20 08:30 +0100
csiph-web