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

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

Date:	Thu, 26 Dec 2013 19:18:34 -0800
From:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.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...

Ok the sign bit doesn't really make any sense on second thought... to work with set_fs() we have to load something from memory anyway and then we might as well do a compare...

"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com> wrote:
>On 12/26/2013 11:00 AM, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>> 
>> Interestingly, looking at the cp_new_stat() profiles, the games we
>> play to get efficient range checking seem to actually hurt us. Maybe
>> it's the "sbb" that is just expensive, or maybe it's turning a (very
>> predictable) conditional branch into a data dependency chain instead.
>> Or maybe it's just random noise in my profiles that happened to make
>> those sbb's look bad.
>> 
>
>I'm not at all surprised... there is a pretty serious data dependency
>chain here and in the end we end up manifesting a value in a register
>that has to be tested even though it is available in the flags.  Inline
>assembly also means the compiler can't optimize it at all.
>
>I have to wonder if we actually have to test the upper limit, though:
>we
>can always guarantee a guard zone between user space and kernel space,
>and thus guarantee either a #PF or #GP if someone tries to overflow
>user
>space.  Testing just the lower limit would be much cheaper, especially
>on 64 bits where we can simply test the sign bit.
>
>What do you think?
>
>	-hpa

-- 
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/