linux-kernel - Re: [tip:x86/asm] x86/i386: Make sure stack-protector segment base is cache aligned

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:	Thu, 03 Sep 2009 20:35:37 -0700
From:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
CC:	Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>, mingo@...hat.com,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, jeremy.fitzhardinge@...rix.com,
	stable@...nel.org, tglx@...utronix.de, mingo@...e.hu,
	linux-tip-commits@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [tip:x86/asm] x86/i386: Make sure stack-protector segment base
 is cache aligned

On 09/03/2009 07:59 PM, Tejun Heo wrote:
> 
> Another question.  Other than saving and loading an extra segment
> register on kernel entry/exit, whether using the same or different
> segment registers doesn't look like would make difference
> performance-wise.  If I'm interpreting the wording in the optimization
> manual correctly, it means that each non-zero segment based memory
> access will be costly regardless of which specific segment register is
> in use and there's no way we can merge segment based dereferences for
> stackprotector and percpu variables.
> 

It's correct that it doesn't make any difference for access, only for load.

	-hpa

-- 
H. Peter Anvin, Intel Open Source Technology Center
I work for Intel.  I don't speak on their behalf.

--
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/