linux-kernel - Re: [RFC] speeding up the stat() family of system calls...

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: <0f21a61b-c1e8-439c-85d6-c18903f1e36b@email.android.com>
Date:	Mon, 23 Dec 2013 22:00:32 -0800
From:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
CC:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
	the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@...nel.org>,
	linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC] speeding up the stat() family of system calls...

Right, the __label__ declaration should take care of it.

Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
>On Mon, Dec 23, 2013 at 4:00 PM, H. Peter Anvin <hpa@...or.com> wrote:
>>
>> I guess I'm a bit puzzled... the current code should be just fine if
>> everything is present, and do we really care about the performance if
>we
>> actually have an error condition?
>
>I think we should. You could make it to do something like eighteen
>expensive page faults in a row for EFAULT, and that's just disgusting,
>when there is no reason to do it.
>
>But to be honest, the resulting assembly is also easier to read,
>because it doesn't have those annoying bogus branch targets all over
>in the middle of the code. That was actually my main issue - looking
>at the generated fs/stat.s file and not puking ;)
>
>(it's still hard to read with all the fixup section stuff, but it's
>better. And it really does generate better code, so..)
>
>> I'm a bit concerned about the put_user_fail: label having uniqueness
>> problem, which I know some versions of gcc at least get very noisy
>over.
>
>Oh, you're right, I forgot to actually declare the label so that gcc
>sees that it's a local one.
>
>So it needs a
>
>   __label__ put_user_fail;
>
>in the put_user_try() (and yes, maybe the label name should have
>underscores prepended or something, just to make sure it's internal).
>
>But gcc is perfectly fine with multiple labels in different scopes if
>you do that. We already use that in a few places, so this isn't even a
>new pattern for us.
>
>             Linus

-- 
Sent from my mobile phone.  Please pardon brevity and lack of formatting.
--
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/