Hi,
On 2021-07-20 19:37:46 +1200, David Rowley wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Jul 2021 at 19:04, Andres Freund <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > * AllocateSetAlloc.txt
> > > * palloc.txt
> > > * percent.txt
> >
> > Huh, that's interesting. You have some control flow enforcement stuff
> > turned on (the endbr64). And it looks like it has a non zero cost (or maybe
> > it's just skid). Did you enable that intentionally? If not, what
> > compiler/version/distro is it? I think at least on GCC that's
> > -fcf-protection=...
>
> It's ubuntu 21.04 with gcc 10.3 (specifically gcc version 10.3.0
> (Ubuntu 10.3.0-1ubuntu1)
>
> I've attached the same results from compiling with clang 12
> (12.0.0-3ubuntu1~21.04.1)
It looks like the ubuntu folks have changed the default for CET to on.
andres@ubuntu2020:~$ echo 'int foo(void) { return 17;}' > test.c && gcc -O2 -c
-o test.o test.c && objdump -S test.o
test.o: file format elf64-x86-64
Disassembly of section .text:
0000000000000000 <foo>:
0: f3 0f 1e fa endbr64
4: b8 11 00 00 00 mov $0x11,%eax
9: c3 retq
andres@ubuntu2020:~$ echo 'int foo(void) { return 17;}' > test.c && gcc -O2
-fcf-protection=none -c -o test.o test.c && objdump -S test.o
test.o: file format elf64-x86-64
Disassembly of section .text:
0000000000000000 <foo>:
0: b8 11 00 00 00 mov $0x11,%eax
5: c3 retq
Independent of this patch, it might be worth running a benchmark with
the default options, and one with -fcf-protection=none. None of my
machines support it...
$ cpuid -1|grep CET
CET_SS: CET shadow stack = false
CET_IBT: CET indirect branch tracking = false
XCR0 supported: CET_U state = false
XCR0 supported: CET_S state = false
Here it adds about 40kB of .text, but I can't measure the CET
overhead...
Greetings,
Andres Freund
