linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH v2 -tip 0/4] x86: signal handler improvement

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20080927171135.GA31552@elte.hu>
Date:	Sat, 27 Sep 2008 19:11:35 +0200
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Cc:	Hiroshi Shimamoto <h-shimamoto@...jp.nec.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 -tip 0/4] x86: signal handler improvement


* H. Peter Anvin <hpa@...or.com> wrote:

> Hiroshi Shimamoto wrote:
>>>>
>>> This is a gcc failure, and should be reported to the gcc people.
>>
>> Does this gcc failure mean unnecessary storing into stack?
>
> Yes, it should be able to process this in a register, instead of 
> storing to the stack and then merging later.
>
> It's possible it's trying to do that to hide latency, but that's 
> clearly a lose in this case.
>
> I'd hate to obfuscate the code, and I'd *really* hate to obfuscate the 
> code to work around gcc brokenness, and then not even bothering to 
> tell the gcc folks.

assuming it's reported to the gcc folks too, do you have any objections 
against including this in tip/x86/signal? The 1% improvement in lmbench 
is quite nice.

	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/