| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <4ABFAB27.1040608@cesarb.net> Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2009 15:12:55 -0300 From: Cesar Eduardo Barros <cesarb@...arb.net> To: Cesar Eduardo Barros <cesarb@...arb.net> CC: Daniel Walker <dwalker@...o99.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, Roland Dreier <rolandd@...co.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH] WARN_ONCE(): use bool for boolean flag Cesar Eduardo Barros escreveu: > Daniel Walker escreveu: >> On Sun, 2009-09-27 at 14:24 -0300, Cesar Eduardo Barros wrote: >> >>> In fact, I was expecting no change at all, since gcc should be able >>> to see it is being treated as a boolean (perhaps I am trusting gcc >>> too much). And to make matters even more confusing, my own test >>> changing all __ret_warn_once to bool and dropping the !! caused an >>> _increase_ of 598 bytes (x86-64 defconfig). >>> >>> text data bss dec hex filename >>> 8100553 1207148 991988 10299689 9d2929 vmlinux.warnret.before >>> 8101119 1207180 991988 10300287 9d2b7f vmlinux.warnret.after >>> >>> (And yes, data increased again.) >> >> If this was just your regular base line config , then that is odd .. I >> also would think worse case would be no size reduction .. I did my >> compile test on x86-32 btw.. > > I will try looking at the first function which shows a difference in > size (which appears to be handle_irq) and see what I can find. I just took a quick look, and it does seem to be bad code generation (the gcc on this machine is a bit old). The question is, is the gain in less buggy gcc versions enough to offset the loss in older and buggier gcc versions? The function in question (stack_overflow_check() in arch/x86/kernel/irq_64.c) has a somewhat complex expression in the call to WARN_ON, which gcc seems to be pessimizing in this case (it is storing the boolean in a register just to test it again). I will send the patch I am using in the next email. gcc (Ubuntu 4.3.2-1ubuntu12) 4.3.2 --- /dev/fd/63 2009-09-27 14:59:26.124947107 -0300 +++ /dev/fd/62 2009-09-27 14:59:26.144947152 -0300 @@ -246,14 +246,14 @@ pushq %rbp #APP # 14 "/scratch/build/cesarb/linux/linux-2.6/arch/x86/include/asm/current.h" 1 - movq %gs:per_cpu__current_task,%rcx + movq %gs:per_cpu__current_task,%rax # 0 "" 2 #NO_APP movq %rsp, %rbp pushq %rbx movl %edi, %ebx subq $8, %rsp - movq 8(%rcx), %r8 + movq 8(%rax), %r8 movq 152(%rsi), %rdx cmpq %r8, %rdx jb .L24 @@ -262,28 +262,40 @@ ja .L24 leaq 400(%r8), %rax cmpq %rax, %rdx - jae .L24 + setb %al + movzbl %al, %eax + jmp .L25 +.L24: + xorl %eax, %eax +.L25: + testl %eax, %eax + je .L26 cmpb $0, __warned.21424(%rip) - jne .L24 + jne .L26 movq %rdx, %r9 - addq $1112, %rcx - movq $.LC3, %rdx movl $47, %esi + movq $.LC3, %rdx +#APP +# 14 "/scratch/build/cesarb/linux/linux-2.6/arch/x86/include/asm/current.h" 1 + movq %gs:per_cpu__current_task,%rcx +# 0 "" 2 +#NO_APP movq $.LC0, %rdi + addq $1112, %rcx xorl %eax, %eax call warn_slowpath_fmt movb $1, __warned.21424(%rip) -.L24: +.L26: movl %ebx, %edi call irq_to_desc xorl %edx, %edx testq %rax, %rax - je .L26 + je .L28 movq %rax, %rsi movl %ebx, %edi call *24(%rax) movb $1, %dl -.L26: +.L28: movb %dl, %al popq %rdx popq %rbx -- Cesar Eduardo Barros cesarb@...arb.net cesar.barros@...il.com -- 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists