linux-kernel - Re: [patch 0/2] Immediate Values

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:	Mon, 28 Apr 2008 14:48:33 +0200
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To:	Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca>
Cc:	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Subject: Re: [patch 0/2] Immediate Values - jump patching update


* Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca> wrote:

> Hi Ingo,
> 
> Here is the update to the jump patching optimization taking care of 
> Peter's comments about register liveliness and instruction re-use by 
> gcc optimizations. A good thing : it actually simplifies the code. 
> Unfortunately, it adds 3 bytes to the instructions in i-cache because 
> I now have to use a 5-bytes mov instruction so I can replace it with a 
> 5-bytes jump. Therefore, 9 bytes are added to rather small functions 
> (5-bytes mov + 2-bytes test + 2 bytes conditional branch) and 13 bytes 
> are added to larger functions which needs a 6 bytes conditional branch 
> at the branch site.
> 
> Instead of having to execute a sequence of nop, nop and jump, we now 
> only have to execute the near jump, which jumps either at the address 
> following the conditional branch or at the target address of the 
> conditional branch, depending on the immediate value variable state.
> 
> Thanks to Peter for the review.

thanks Mathieu, i've queued them up for more testing. Your previous 
queue already looked good here so i pushed it out into sched-devel.git 
as you probably noticed.

Sidenote, without trying to bikeshed paint this issue too much: are we 
absolutely sure that (on modern CPU architectures) such a short jump is 
better than just 2-3 NOPs in a sequence? It's a minor (sub-cycle) detail 
in any case.

	Ingo
--
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/