linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 0/6] Micro-optimize vclock

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]

Message-ID: <BANLkTik9+UGLvPCLYO246N4fMxJ5F=vHwA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Tue, 17 May 2011 23:18:08 -0400
From:	Andrew Lutomirski <luto@....edu>
To:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc:	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	x86@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
	Borislav Petkov <bp@...64.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 0/6] Micro-optimize vclock_gettime

On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 6:59 PM, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de> wrote:
> On Tue, 17 May 2011, Andi Kleen wrote:
>> Andy Lutomirski <luto@....EDU> writes:
>> >
>> > On KVM on Sandy Bridge, I can emulate a vsyscall that does nothing in 400ns or so.  I'll try to make this code emulate real vsyscalls over the weekend.  This was much easier than I expected.
>>
>> How about the performance of all the statically linked programs? I guess
>
> _ALL_ the statically linked programs? Point out a single one which
> matters and _IS_ performance critical.
>
>> you just declared they don't matter? gettimeofday is quite critical
>> and adding a exception into it is just a performance desaster.
>>
>> Also it's always a dangerous assumption to think that all
>> programs on Linux use glibc ("all world is a Vax")
>>
>> In fact more and more of Linux users are using different libcs these
>> days (like Android or embedded systems or languages with special runtime
>> systems) Who knows if all those other libraries use vDSO?
>
> Which is completely irrelevant to x86_64. Point to a single relevant
> x86_64 embedded system to which one of the above handwaving applies.
>
>> And then there are of course the old glibcs. A lot of people
>> (including me) use new kernels with old userland.
>
> And how is your use case performance critical ?
>
> Furthermore any halfways up to date deployemnt is using VDSO for
> obvious reasons and the archaic stuff which might be affected is not
> using a recent kernel at all (except for akpm on his retro laptop, but
> that "performance penalty" is probably the least of his worries).

Sadly that's not quite true.  glibc git right now contains this:

ENTRY (__gettimeofday)
        /* Align stack.  */
        sub     $0x8, %rsp
        cfi_adjust_cfa_offset(8)
#ifdef SHARED
        movq    __vdso_gettimeofday(%rip), %rax
        PTR_DEMANGLE (%rax)
#else
        movq    $VSYSCALL_ADDR_vgettimeofday, %rax
#endif
        callq   *%rax

And time() and sched_getcpu() call the vsyscall page unconditionally.
We should either declare CLOCK_REALTIME_COARSE to be acceptable for
time() or add a new vDSO call.

IMO we should put a note in feature-removal-schedule.txt, add vsyscall
emulation as a config option for 2.6.41 but leave it turned off by
default, and turn it on by default (or just remove the old code) in
2.6.43 or so.  That'll give glibc a chance to stop generating *new*
static binaries that call it.

I'm not volunteering to dig around the libdl stuff to fix it myself.

klibc doesn't seem to use vsyscalls or the vDSO.  I haven't looked at
uclibc, and I don't think that Bionic has any released version on
x86_64.

--Andy
--
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/