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 52696: Harden stout
Date Mon, 07 Nov 2016 19:27:05 GMT


> On Nov. 2, 2016, 9:33 a.m., Benjamin Bannier wrote:
> > 3rdparty/stout/Makefile.am, line 27
> > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/52696/diff/4/?file=1551003#file1551003line27>
> >
> >     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?

Going to drop this since we've all agreed on Slack to have the frame pointer modification
done in a separate patch.


- Aaron


-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/52696/#review154526
-----------------------------------------------------------


On Nov. 2, 2016, 3:35 p.m., Aaron Wood wrote:
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/52696/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> (Updated Nov. 2, 2016, 3:35 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 stout. Additionally,
check and catch more warnings/errors.
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -----
> 
>   3rdparty/stout/Makefile.am 4e10ae2 
>   3rdparty/stout/configure.ac cbb0fdb 
>   3rdparty/stout/m4/ax_check_compile_flag.m4 PRE-CREATION 
> 
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/52696/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/2016/11/02/18a2f590-75ad-49c5-a697-56b746f28cae__hardened-optimized.txt
> Hardening applied but no --enable-optimized
>   https://reviews.apache.org/media/uploaded/files/2016/11/02/a6e07766-80cc-4bd7-856d-8952cac12562__hardened-unoptimized.txt
> --enable-optimized with no hardening applied
>   https://reviews.apache.org/media/uploaded/files/2016/11/02/046b37a9-5aff-4543-b3bb-5ac60daaf498__optimized.txt
> No hardening applied and no --enable-optimized
>   https://reviews.apache.org/media/uploaded/files/2016/11/02/3baa96cf-be05-4ac0-ad4c-ef571386e8f4__unoptimized.txt
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Aaron Wood
> 
>


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