From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:52011) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1R868L-0007qN-Vw for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 26 Sep 2011 04:01:51 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1R868K-0004dn-9j for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 26 Sep 2011 04:01:49 -0400 Received: from mail-yi0-f45.google.com ([209.85.218.45]:53619) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1R868K-0004dO-7D for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 26 Sep 2011 04:01:48 -0400 Received: by yib2 with SMTP id 2so5333717yib.4 for ; Mon, 26 Sep 2011 01:01:47 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <4E802DDD.8090100@siemens.com> References: <4E802DDD.8090100@siemens.com> From: Mulyadi Santosa Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2011 15:01:07 +0700 Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] tcg: Remove stack protection from helper functions List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Jan Kiszka Cc: qemu-devel Hi... On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 14:46, Jan Kiszka wrote: > This increases the overhead of frequently executed helpers. > > Signed-off-by: Jan Kiszka IMHO, stack protector setup put more stuffs during epilogue, but quite likely it is negligible unless it cause too much L1 cache misses. So, I think this micro tuning is somewhat unnecessary but still okay. Security wise, I think it's better to just leave it as is like now. -- regards, Mulyadi Santosa Freelance Linux trainer and consultant blog: the-hydra.blogspot.com training: mulyaditraining.blogspot.com