On October 6, 2024 12:17:40 PM PDT, Uros Bizjak <ubiz...@gmail.com> wrote: >On Sun, Oct 6, 2024 at 8:01 PM David Laight <david.lai...@aculab.com> wrote: >> >> ... >> > Due to the non-negligible impact of PIE, perhaps some kind of >> > CONFIG_PIE config definition should be introduced, so the assembly >> > code would be able to choose optimal asm sequence when PIE and non-PIE >> > is requested? >> >> I wouldn't have thought that performance mattered in the asm code >> that runs during startup? > >No, not the code that runs only once, where performance impact can be >tolerated. > >This one: > >https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20240925150059.3955569-44-ardb+...@google.com/ > >Uros. >
Yeah, running the kernel proper as PIE seems like a lose all around. The decompressor, ELF stub, etc, are of course a different matter entirely (and at least the latter can't rely on the small or kernel memory models anyway.)
