linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RFC V2 3/5] jump_label: if a key has already been initialized, don't nop it out

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <4E8DEB19.1050509@goop.org>
Date:	Thu, 06 Oct 2011 10:53:29 -0700
From:	Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>
To:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
CC:	Jason Baron <jbaron@...hat.com>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	David Daney <david.daney@...ium.com>,
	Michael Ellerman <michael@...erman.id.au>,
	Jan Glauber <jang@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@...nel.org>,
	Xen Devel <xen-devel@...ts.xensource.com>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy.fitzhardinge@...rix.com>,
	peterz@...radead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC V2 3/5] jump_label: if a key has already been initialized,
 don't nop it out

On 10/05/2011 05:17 PM, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> On 10/05/2011 05:16 PM, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
>> On 10/04/2011 09:30 AM, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>>> On 10/04/2011 07:10 AM, Jason Baron wrote:
>>>> 1) The jmp +0, is a 'safe' no-op that I know is going to initially
>>>> boot for all x86. I'm not sure if there is a 5-byte nop that works on
>>>> all x86 variants - but by using jmp +0, we make it much easier to debug
>>>> cases where we may be using broken no-ops.
>>>>
>>> There are *plenty*.  jmp+0 is about as pessimal as you can get.
>> As an aside, do you know if a 2-byte unconditional jmp is any more
>> efficient than 5-byte, aside from just being a smaller instruction and
>> taking less icache?
>>
> I don't know for sure, no.  I probably depends on the CPU.

Looks like jmp2 is about 5% faster than jmp5 on Sandybridge with this
benchmark.

But insignificant difference on Nehalem.

    J

View attachment "jmp2.c" of type "text/x-csrc" (550 bytes)

View attachment "jmp5.c" of type "text/x-csrc" (537 bytes)