Message ID | 20211126052851.2176408-1-siddhesh@gotplt.org |
---|---|
Headers | show |
Series | __builtin_dynamic_object_size | expand |
On 11/26/21 10:58, Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote: > sure it works) and saw no issues in any of those builds. I did some > rudimentary analysis of the generated binaries using fortify-metrics[1] > to confirm that there was a difference in coverage between the two > fortification levels. > > Here is a summary of coverage in the above packages: > > F = number of fortified calls > T = Total number of calls to fortifiable functions (fortified as well as > unfortified) > C = F * 100/ T > > Package F(2) T(2) F(3) T(3) C(2) C(3) > bash 428 1220 1005 1196 35.08% 84.03% > wpa_supplicant 1635 3232 2350 3408 50.59% 68.96% > systemtap 324 1990 343 1994 16.28% 17.20% > cmake 830 14181 958 14196 5.85% 6.75% > > The numbers are slightly lower than the previous patch series because in > the interim I pushed an improvement to folding of the _chk builtins so > that they can use ranges to simplify the calls to their regular > variants. Also note that even _FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 coverage should be > improved due to negative offset handling. [1] https://github.com/siddhesh/fortify-metrics