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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Message-ID: <20111006183841.GC2505@redhat.com>
Date:	Thu, 6 Oct 2011 14:38:41 -0400
From:	Jason Baron <jbaron@...hat.com>
To:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Cc:	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
	Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.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, rth@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC V2 3/5] jump_label: if a key has already been
 initialized, don't nop it out

On Thu, Oct 06, 2011 at 11:29:25AM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> On 10/06/2011 11:26 AM, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > On Thu, 2011-10-06 at 14:10 -0400, Jason Baron wrote:
> > 
> >>> Looks like jmp2 is about 5% faster than jmp5 on Sandybridge with this
> >>> benchmark.
> >>>
> >>> But insignificant difference on Nehalem.
> >>>
> >>>     J
> >>
> >> It would be cool if we could make the total width 2-bytes, when
> >> possible.  It might be possible by making the initial 'JUMP_LABEL_INITIAL_NOP'
> >> as a 'jmp' to the 'l_yes' label. And then patching that with a no-op at boot
> >> time or link time - letting the compiler pick the width. In that way we could
> >> get the optimal width...
> > 
> > Why not just do it?
> > 
> > jump_label is encapsulated in arch_static_branch() which on x86 looks
> > like:
> > 
> > static __always_inline bool arch_static_branch(struct jump_label_key *key)
> > {
> > 	asm goto("1:"
> > 		JUMP_LABEL_INITIAL_NOP
> > 		".pushsection __jump_table,  \"aw\" \n\t"
> > 		_ASM_ALIGN "\n\t"
> > 		_ASM_PTR "1b, %l[l_yes], %c0 \n\t"
> > 		".popsection \n\t"
> > 		: :  "i" (key) : : l_yes);
> > 	return false;
> > l_yes:
> > 	return true;
> > }
> > 
> > 
> > That jmp to l_yes should easily be a two byte jump.

remember the compiler is moving the l_yes out of line, so its not
necessarily always a two byte jump. Also, I plan to look at a possible
'cold' label for the 'l_yes' branch, so that it can moved to a separate
'cold' section, but we might only want that for some cases...

> > 
> > If not I'm sure it would be easy to catch it before modifying the code.
> > And then complain real loudly about it.
> > 
> 
> The important thing is that it requires the build-time elimination of
> jumps.  It's just work.
> 
> 	-hpa
> 

Right, its certainly doable, but I'm not sure its so simple, since we'll
need a pass to eliminate the jumps - which can be keyed off the
'__jump_table' section. 

thanks,

-Jason
--
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/