netdev - Re: [RFC PATCH 0/3] kernel: add support for 256-bit IO access

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, 20 Mar 2018 10:08:02 +0100
From:   Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
To:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc:     David Laight <David.Laight@...LAB.COM>,
        'Rahul Lakkireddy' <rahul.lakkireddy@...lsio.com>,
        "x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        "mingo@...hat.com" <mingo@...hat.com>,
        "hpa@...or.com" <hpa@...or.com>,
        "davem@...emloft.net" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        "akpm@...ux-foundation.org" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        "torvalds@...ux-foundation.org" <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        "ganeshgr@...lsio.com" <ganeshgr@...lsio.com>,
        "nirranjan@...lsio.com" <nirranjan@...lsio.com>,
        "indranil@...lsio.com" <indranil@...lsio.com>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
        Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu@...el.com>,
        Eric Biggers <ebiggers3@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/3] kernel: add support for 256-bit IO access


* Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de> wrote:

> > So I do think we could do more in this area to improve driver performance, if the 
> > code is correct and if there's actual benchmarks that are showing real benefits.
> 
> If it's about hotpath performance I'm all for it, but the use case here is
> a debug facility...
> 
> And if we go down that road then we want a AVX based memcpy()
> implementation which is runtime conditional on the feature bit(s) and
> length dependent. Just slapping a readqq() at it and use it in a loop does
> not make any sense.

Yeah, so generic memcpy() replacement is only feasible I think if the most 
optimistic implementation is actually correct:

 - if no preempt disable()/enable() is required

 - if direct access to the AVX[2] registers does not disturb legacy FPU state in 
   any fashion

 - if direct access to the AVX[2] registers cannot raise weird exceptions or have
   weird behavior if the FPU control word is modified to non-standard values by 
   untrusted user-space

If we have to touch the FPU tag or control words then it's probably only good for 
a specialized API.

Thanks,

	Ingo