linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH] x86, fpu: Use eagerfpu by default on all CPUs

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:	Tue, 24 Feb 2015 16:07:07 -0800
From:	Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
To:	Denys Vlasenko <vda.linux@...glemail.com>
Cc:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>, Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
	X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] x86, fpu: Use eagerfpu by default on all CPUs

On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 11:15 AM, Denys Vlasenko
<vda.linux@...glemail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 20, 2015 at 7:58 PM, Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net> wrote:
>> We have eager and lazy fpu modes, introduced in:
>>
>> 304bceda6a18 x86, fpu: use non-lazy fpu restore for processors supporting xsave
>>
>> The result is rather messy.  There are two code paths in almost all of the
>> FPU code, and only one of them (the eager case) is tested frequently, since
>> most kernel developers have new enough hardware that we use eagerfpu.
>>
>> It seems that, on any remotely recent hardware, eagerfpu is a win:
>> glibc uses SSE2, so laziness is probably overoptimistic, and, in any
>> case, manipulating TS is far slower that saving and restoring the full
>> state.
>>
>> To try to shake out any latent issues on old hardware, this changes
>> the default to eager on all CPUs.  If no performance or functionality
>> problems show up, a subsequent patch could remove lazy mode entirely.
>
> I'm a big fan of simplifying things, but.
>
> SIMD registers were growing in x86, and they are going to grow again,
> this time four-fold in Intel MIC:
> from sixteen 256-bit registers to thirty two 512-bit registers.
>
> That's 2 kbytes of data. Just moving this data out to/from memory
> will take some time.
>
> And some people talk about 1024-bit registers already...
>
> Let's not completely remove lazy FPU saving code just yet.
> Maybe we'll be forced to reinstate it.

I'd prefer a different partial solution: encourage everyone to clear
the xstate before making syscalls (using e.g. vzeroall).  In fact,
maybe user code should aggressively clear newly-unused xstate.

--Andy
--
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/