Re: Stack Smash Protection disabled (was HEADS-UP: Stack Smash Protection enabled by default for amd64 and i386)

[Thor Lancelot Simon <tls%panix.com@localhost>]

On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 05:01:34AM +0000, David Holland wrote:
> 
> It's been noted elsewhere that theoretically the overhead of SSP is
> not supposed to be 5%; it's supposed to be negligible. Where is this
> 5% overhead coming from?

One possibility is our non-default settings for the stack protector.  We
tell GCC to protect access to all objects -- not just objects large enough
to contain an address, which is the default.

It's possible this is dramatically slowing down some bytewise operation
somewhere which is commonly called.

Thor