linux-kernel - [RFT/PATCH v2 3/6] x86-64: Don't generate cmov in vread

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:	Wed,  6 Apr 2011 22:04:00 -0400
From:	Andy Lutomirski <luto@....EDU>
To:	x86@...nel.org
Cc:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Andy Lutomirski <luto@....edu>
Subject: [RFT/PATCH v2 3/6] x86-64: Don't generate cmov in vread_tsc

vread_tsc checks whether rdtsc returns something less than
cycle_last, which is an extremely predictable branch.  GCC likes
to generate a cmov anyway, which is several cycles slower than
a predicted branch.  This saves a couple of nanoseconds.

Signed-off-by: Andy Lutomirski <luto@....edu>
---
 arch/x86/kernel/tsc.c |   19 +++++++++++++++----
 1 files changed, 15 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)

diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/tsc.c b/arch/x86/kernel/tsc.c
index 858c084..69ff619 100644
--- a/arch/x86/kernel/tsc.c
+++ b/arch/x86/kernel/tsc.c
@@ -794,14 +794,25 @@ static cycle_t __vsyscall_fn vread_tsc(void)
 	 */
 
 	/*
-	 * This doesn't multiply 'zero' by anything, which *should*
-	 * generate nicer code, except that gcc cleverly embeds the
-	 * dereference into the cmp and the cmovae.  Oh, well.
+	 * This doesn't multiply 'zero' by anything, which generates
+	 * very slightly nicer code than multiplying it by 8.
 	 */
 	last = *( (cycle_t *)
 		  ((char *)&VVAR(vsyscall_gtod_data).clock.cycle_last + zero) );
 
-	return ret >= last ? ret : last;
+	if (likely(ret >= last))
+		return ret;
+
+	/*
+	 * GCC likes to generate cmov here, but this branch is extremely
+	 * predictable (it's just a funciton of time and the likely is
+	 * very likely) and there's a data dependence, so force GCC
+	 * to generate a branch instead.  I don't barrier() because
+	 * we don't actually need a barrier, and if this function
+	 * ever gets inlined it will generate worse code.
+	 */
+	asm volatile ("");
+	return last;
 }
 #endif
 
-- 
1.7.4

--
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/