| 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
| ||
|
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2015 17:57:47 +0100
From: Radim Krčmář <rkrcmar@...hat.com>
To: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
Nadav Amit <namit@...technion.ac.il>,
Gleb Natapov <gleb@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 8/8] KVM: x86: simplify kvm_apic_map
2015-01-30 16:23+0100, Paolo Bonzini:
> On 30/01/2015 16:14, Radim Krčmář wrote:
> > > > + case KVM_APIC_MODE_XAPIC_FLAT:
> > > > + *cid = 0;
> > > > + *lid = ldr & 0xff;
> > > > + return true;
> > > > + case KVM_APIC_MODE_XAPIC_CLUSTER:
> > > > + *cid = (ldr >> 4) & 0xf;
> > > > + *lid = ldr & 0xf;
> > > > + return true;
> > > > + case KVM_APIC_MODE_X2APIC:
> > > > + *cid = ldr >> 16;
> > > > + *lid = ldr & 0xffff;
> > > > + return true;
> > > > + }
> >
> >> > lid_bits = mode;
> >> > cid_bits = mode & (16 | 4);
> >> > lid_mask = (1 << lid_bits) - 1;
> >> > cid_mask = (1 << cid_bits) - 1;
> >> >
> >> > *cid = (ldr >> lid_bits) & cid_mask;
> >> > *lid = ldr & lid_mask;
> > Would jump predictor fail on the switch? Or is size of the code that
> > important? This code is shorter, but is going to execute far more
> > operations, so I think it would be slower ... (And harder to read.)
>
> Considering the additional comparisons for the switch, I don't think
> it's going to execute far more operations...
(A quick assembly comparison [1].)
As optimizations go, we could drop the "&" on cid as "cid < 16" is
checked later, so mode=4 practically does nothing ... Not the best for
future bugs, but still pretty safe -- only x2APIC can set a value that
would require the "&" and it can't have valid XAPIC mode, so u32 still
protects us enough.
*cid = ldr >> mode;
*lid = ldr & ((1 << mode) - 1);
Which is probably faster a solution where we don't shuffle switch cases
to jump to x2APIC first. A comparison is at the very bottom [2].
Would that be ok in v2?
---
1: To make it easier, it wasn't inlined, sorry.
There are four parts, first one compares the whole functions and
three subsequent compare each switch case, with common head/tail
omitted. (We don't care about performance when the map is invalid.)
The optimized version is always first and next to it is the old one.
0000000000001700 <apic_logical_id>: (ALI from now on)
1700: callq 1705 <ALI+0x5> 1700: callq 1705 <ALI+0x5>
1705: push %rbp 1705: movzbl 0x10(%rdi),%eax
1706: movzbl 0x10(%rdi),%r8d 1709: push %rbp
170b: mov %rcx,%r10 170a: mov %rsp,%rbp
170e: xor %eax,%eax 170d: cmp $0x8,%al
1710: mov %rsp,%rbp 170f: je 1758 <ALI+0x58>
1713: lea -0x1(%r8),%ecx 1711: cmp $0x10,%al
1717: test %r8d,%ecx 1713: je 1740 <ALI+0x40>
171a: jne 1752 <ALI+0x52> 1715: cmp $0x4,%al
171c: mov %r8d,%edi 1717: je 1720 <ALI+0x20>
171f: mov $0x1,%eax 1719: xor %eax,%eax
1724: mov %esi,%r8d 171b: pop %rbp
1727: mov %edi,%ecx 171c: retq
1729: mov %eax,%r9d 171d: nopl (%rax)
172c: shr %cl,%r8d 1720: mov %esi,%eax
172f: and $0x14,%ecx 1722: and $0xf,%esi
1732: shl %cl,%r9d 1725: shr $0x4,%eax
1735: mov %edi,%ecx 1728: and $0xf,%eax
1737: shl %cl,%eax 172b: mov %ax,(%rdx)
1739: sub $0x1,%r9d 172e: mov $0x1,%eax
173d: sub $0x1,%eax 1733: mov %si,(%rcx)
1740: and %r9d,%r8d 1736: pop %rbp
1743: and %esi,%eax 1737: retq
1745: mov %r8w,(%rdx) 1738: nopl 0x0(%rax,%rax,1)
1749: mov %ax,(%r10) 173f:
174d: mov $0x1,%eax 1740: mov %esi,%eax
1752: pop %rbp 1742: shr $0x10,%eax
1753: retq 1745: mov %ax,(%rdx)
1748: mov $0x1,%eax
174d: mov %si,(%rcx)
1750: pop %rbp
1751: retq
1752: nopw 0x0(%rax,%rax,1)
1758: xor %eax,%eax
175a: and $0xff,%si
175f: mov %ax,(%rdx)
1762: mov $0x1,%eax
1767: mov %si,(%rcx)
176a: pop %rbp
176b: retq
170b: mov %rcx,%r10 170a: mov %rsp,%rbp
170e: xor %eax,%eax 170d: cmp $0x8,%al
1710: mov %rsp,%rbp 170f: je 1758 <ALI+0x58>
1713: lea -0x1(%r8),%ecx [jump]
1717: test %r8d,%ecx 1758: xor %eax,%eax
171a: jne 1752 <ALI+0x52> 175a: and $0xff,%si
171c: mov %r8d,%edi 175f: mov %ax,(%rdx)
171f: mov $0x1,%eax 1762: mov $0x1,%eax
1724: mov %esi,%r8d 1767: mov %si,(%rcx)
1727: mov %edi,%ecx
1729: mov %eax,%r9d
172c: shr %cl,%r8d
172f: and $0x14,%ecx
1732: shl %cl,%r9d
1735: mov %edi,%ecx
1737: shl %cl,%eax
1739: sub $0x1,%r9d
173d: sub $0x1,%eax
1740: and %r9d,%r8d
1743: and %esi,%eax
1745: mov %r8w,(%rdx)
1749: mov %ax,(%r10)
174d: mov $0x1,%eax
170b: mov %rcx,%r10 170a: mov %rsp,%rbp
170e: xor %eax,%eax 170d: cmp $0x8,%al
1710: mov %rsp,%rbp 170f: je 1758 <ALI+0x58>
1713: lea -0x1(%r8),%ecx 1711: cmp $0x10,%al
1717: test %r8d,%ecx 1713: je 1740 <ALI+0x40>
171a: jne 1752 <ALI+0x52> [jump]
171c: mov %r8d,%edi 1740: mov %esi,%eax
171f: mov $0x1,%eax 1742: shr $0x10,%eax
1724: mov %esi,%r8d 1745: mov %ax,(%rdx)
1727: mov %edi,%ecx 1748: mov $0x1,%eax
1729: mov %eax,%r9d 174d: mov %si,(%rcx)
172c: shr %cl,%r8d
172f: and $0x14,%ecx
1732: shl %cl,%r9d
1735: mov %edi,%ecx
1737: shl %cl,%eax
1739: sub $0x1,%r9d
173d: sub $0x1,%eax
1740: and %r9d,%r8d
1743: and %esi,%eax
1745: mov %r8w,(%rdx)
1749: mov %ax,(%r10)
174d: mov $0x1,%eax
170b: mov %rcx,%r10 170a: mov %rsp,%rbp
170e: xor %eax,%eax 170d: cmp $0x8,%al
1710: mov %rsp,%rbp 170f: je 1758 <ALI+0x58>
1713: lea -0x1(%r8),%ecx 1711: cmp $0x10,%al
1717: test %r8d,%ecx 1713: je 1740 <ALI+0x40>
171a: jne 1752 <ALI+0x52> 1715: cmp $0x4,%al
171c: mov %r8d,%edi 1717: je 1720 <ALI+0x20>
171f: mov $0x1,%eax [jump]
1724: mov %esi,%r8d 1720: mov %esi,%eax
1727: mov %edi,%ecx 1722: and $0xf,%esi
1729: mov %eax,%r9d 1725: shr $0x4,%eax
172c: shr %cl,%r8d 1728: and $0xf,%eax
172f: and $0x14,%ecx 172b: mov %ax,(%rdx)
1732: shl %cl,%r9d 172e: mov $0x1,%eax
1735: mov %edi,%ecx 1733: mov %si,(%rcx)
1737: shl %cl,%eax
1739: sub $0x1,%r9d
173d: sub $0x1,%eax
1740: and %r9d,%r8d
1743: and %esi,%eax
1745: mov %r8w,(%rdx)
1749: mov %ax,(%r10)
174d: mov $0x1,%eax
2: A comparison of aggressively optimized ALI with the worst case
scenario, where x2APIC is the third jump.
16e5: mov %rcx,%r9 170a: mov %rsp,%rbp
16ed: xor %eax,%eax 170d: cmp $0x8,%al
16ef: mov %rsp,%rbp 170f: je 1758 <ALI+0x58>
16f2: lea -0x1(%rcx),%r8d 1711: cmp $0x10,%al
16f6: test %ecx,%r8d 1713: je 1740 <ALI+0x40>
16f9: jne 1717 <ALI+0x37> 1715: cmp $0x4,%al
16fb: mov %esi,%eax 1717: je 1720 <ALI+0x20>
16fd: shr %cl,%eax [jump]
16ff: mov %ax,(%rdx) 1720: mov %esi,%eax
1702: mov $0x1,%eax 1722: and $0xf,%esi
1707: shl %cl,%eax 1725: shr $0x4,%eax
1709: sub $0x1,%eax 1728: and $0xf,%eax
170c: and %esi,%eax 172b: mov %ax,(%rdx)
170e: mov %ax,(%r9) 172e: mov $0x1,%eax
1712: mov $0x1,%eax 1733: mov %si,(%rcx)
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists