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: <20140611043416.13875.qmail@ns.horizon.com>
Date:	11 Jun 2014 00:34:16 -0400
From:	"George Spelvin" <linux@...izon.com>
To:	linux@...izon.com, tytso@....edu
Cc:	hpa@...ux.intel.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	mingo@...nel.org, price@....edu
Subject: Re: drivers/char/random.c: more ruminations

> So have you actually instrumented the kernel to demonstrate that in
> fact we have super deep stack call paths where the 128 bytes worth of
> stack actually matters?

I haven't got a specific call chain where 128 bytes pushes it
over a limit.  But kernel stack usage is a perennial problem.
Wasn't there some discussion about that just recenty?
6538b8ea8: "x86_64: expand kernel stack to 16K"

I agree a 128 byte stack frame is not one of the worst offenders,
but it's enough to try to clean up if possible.

You can search LKML for a bunch of discussion of 176 bytes
in __alloc_pages_slowpath().

And in this case, it's so *easy*.  extract_buf() works 10 bytes at a
time anyway, and _mix_pool_bytes is byte at a time.

>> I hadn't tested the patch when I mailed it to you (I prepared it in
>> order to reply to your e-mail, and it's annoying to reboot the machine
>> I'm composing an e-mail on), but I have since.  It works.

> As an aside, I'd strongly suggest that you use kvm to do your kernel
> testing.  It means you can do a lot more testing which is always a
> good thing....

H'mmm. I need to learn what KVM *is*.  Apparently there's a second
meaning other than "keyboard, video & mouse". :-)

Normally, I just test using modules.  Especially when working on a
driver for a hardware device, virtualization makes life difficult.
But /dev/random is (for good reasons) not modularizable.

(I can see how it'd be useful for filesystem development, however.)
--
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/

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ