linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RFC V2 3/5] jump_label: if a key has already been initialized, don't nop it out

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Thu, 6 Oct 2011 14:33:19 -0400
From:	Jason Baron <jbaron@...hat.com>
To:	Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>
Cc:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	David Daney <david.daney@...ium.com>,
	Michael Ellerman <michael@...erman.id.au>,
	Jan Glauber <jang@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@...nel.org>,
	Xen Devel <xen-devel@...ts.xensource.com>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy.fitzhardinge@...rix.com>,
	peterz@...radead.org, rth@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC V2 3/5] jump_label: if a key has already been
 initialized, don't nop it out

On Thu, Oct 06, 2011 at 11:15:07AM -0700, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
> On 10/06/2011 11:10 AM, Jason Baron wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 06, 2011 at 10:53:29AM -0700, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
> >> On 10/05/2011 05:17 PM, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> >>> On 10/05/2011 05:16 PM, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
> >>>> On 10/04/2011 09:30 AM, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> >>>>> On 10/04/2011 07:10 AM, Jason Baron wrote:
> >>>>>> 1) The jmp +0, is a 'safe' no-op that I know is going to initially
> >>>>>> boot for all x86. I'm not sure if there is a 5-byte nop that works on
> >>>>>> all x86 variants - but by using jmp +0, we make it much easier to debug
> >>>>>> cases where we may be using broken no-ops.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> There are *plenty*.  jmp+0 is about as pessimal as you can get.
> >>>> As an aside, do you know if a 2-byte unconditional jmp is any more
> >>>> efficient than 5-byte, aside from just being a smaller instruction and
> >>>> taking less icache?
> >>>>
> >>> I don't know for sure, no.  I probably depends on the CPU.
> >> Looks like jmp2 is about 5% faster than jmp5 on Sandybridge with this
> >> benchmark.
> >>
> >> But insignificant difference on Nehalem.
> >>
> >>     J
> > It would be cool if we could make the total width 2-bytes, when
> > possible.  It might be possible by making the initial 'JUMP_LABEL_INITIAL_NOP'
> > as a 'jmp' to the 'l_yes' label. And then patching that with a no-op at boot
> > time or link time - letting the compiler pick the width. In that way we could
> > get the optimal width...
> 
> I'll have a look at it later today if I get a moment.  Should be fairly
> straightforward.
> 

cool. It does add some complication, I think...detecting the 2-byte vs.
5-byte, and if done at boot time, possibly taking the undesired
branch...

> What about the rest of the series.  Do you think it looks cooked enough
> for next mergewindow?
> 
>     J

Yes, it looks good to me thanks! Feel free to add my ack to the series.

thanks,

-Jason
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/