linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/4] x86: save user rsp in pt

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, 10 Mar 2015 14:50:18 +0100
From:	Denys Vlasenko <vda.linux@...glemail.com>
To:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Cc:	Denys Vlasenko <dvlasenk@...hat.com>,
	Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
	Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
	Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...mgrid.com>,
	Will Drewry <wad@...omium.org>,
	Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>, X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] x86: save user rsp in pt_regs->sp on SYSCALL64 fastpath

On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 2:21 PM, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org> wrote:
>> Since this patch does add two extra MOVs,
>> I did benchmark these patches. They add exactly one cycle
>> to system call code path on my Sandy Bridge CPU.
>
> Hm, but that's the wrong direction, we should try to make it faster,
> and to clean it up

As you know, goals of "faster" and "cleaner" are often mutually exclusive.
C'est la vie :(

entry.S seem to lean towards "faster" to the extent where it became
a tangled maze of obscure optimizations.

Such as the mysterious, and not at all obvious existence of 8 byte
"safety padding" at the top of the 32-bit kernel stack. Before Andy
stumbled into it, it was not at all obvious that it is even there.
I had to write a test patch to verify it.
There is a long-standing latent bug in the code where this padding
is not accounted for.

> - but making it slower without really good reasons isn't good.

The thinking here is that cleaning up entry.S is a good reason.

We won't do anything which would slow it down by, say, 5%,
but one cycle may be considered acceptable loss.
--
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/