----------------------------------------------------------- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/52645/#review151886 -----------------------------------------------------------
3rdparty/libprocess/Makefile.am (line 16) <https://reviews.apache.org/r/52645/#comment220515> Needs a comment explaining the purpose of these flags. 3rdparty/libprocess/Makefile.am (line 17) <https://reviews.apache.org/r/52645/#comment220514> Comment should end in a period. src/Makefile.am (line 92) <https://reviews.apache.org/r/52645/#comment220516> This should be moved up above the preceding comment (the comment describes the `-Wl,--as-needed` line below). (1) Do we need to make the `CXXFLAGS` conditional on being supported by the current compiler? Seems like these flags are quite specific to (certain versions of?) gcc/clang. (2) You should split this review into three separate reviews: a single review should make changes to at most one of Mesos, libprocess, and stout. (3) What _specific_ attack vectors are these changes intended to prevent? - Neil Conway On Oct. 7, 2016, 7:22 p.m., Aaron Wood wrote: > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: > https://reviews.apache.org/r/52645/ > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > (Updated Oct. 7, 2016, 7:22 p.m.) > > > Review request for mesos and Michael Park. > > > 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 > Mesos. Additionally, check and catch more warnings/errors. > > > Diffs > ----- > > 3rdparty/libprocess/Makefile.am 020b0e1 > 3rdparty/stout/Makefile.am fda069d > src/Makefile.am bfdb66a > > Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/52645/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. > > > Thanks, > > Aaron Wood > >
