On Mon, Dec 5, 2022 at 3:17 PM Gary Buhrmaster <gary.buhrmaster@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Mon, Dec 5, 2022 at 7:58 PM Ben Cotton <bcotton@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Add_FORTIFY_SOURCE%3D3_to_distribution_build_flags > > > > It is my vague recollection (I could easily be wrong, so > correct me as appropriate) that _FORTIFY_SOURCE=3 > adds some runtime overhead that did not apply in > previous levels. > > If that is correct, has the potential performance impact > been evaluated and documented somewhere? And, if > correct, the change proposal should probably be modified > to mention the potential performance impacts. It has a similar impact that turning back on frame pointers would. Cf. https://developers.redhat.com/articles/2022/09/17/gccs-new-fortification-level#the_gains_of_improved_security_coverage_outweigh_the_cost I'm extremely displeased now, as the toolchain team basically told us they wouldn't accept register pressure on x86_64 and then turned around and made a proposal that does the same thing. Apparently quality of life improvements for developers and real-time tracing (e.g. making bpftrace useful) isn't worth it, but this is. I want a really good justification for not doing both at the same time if we're going to accept this. -- 真実はいつも一つ！/ Always, there's only one truth! _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
