| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20140805152427.GX7393@tucnak.redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2014 17:24:27 +0200
From: Jakub Jelinek <jakub@...hat.com>
To: Markus Trippelsdorf <markus@...ppelsdorf.de>
Cc: Josh Boyer <jwboyer@...oraproject.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
stable <stable@...r.kernel.org>,
Michel Dänzer <michel@...nzer.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3.15 33/37] Fix gcc-4.9.0 miscompilation of
load_balance() in scheduler
On Tue, Aug 05, 2014 at 01:46:49PM +0200, Markus Trippelsdorf wrote:
> On 2014.08.05 at 07:31 -0400, Josh Boyer wrote:
> > Sorry to bring this back up after the fact, but it's important for a
> > number of things in various distros. I don't disagree it should be
> > disabled by default, but making it unconditional is going to force the
> > distributions that care about perf, systemtap, and debuggers to
> > manually revert this. That deviation is concerning because the
> > upstream kernel won't easily be buildable the same way distros build
> > it.
> >
> > I'm happy to come up with a config option patch, but I'm not sure if
> > it would be accepted. Is that a possibility at this point?
>
> Please note that https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61923
But that isn't a wrong-code bug, in some cases it is no code generation difference
between -g and -g0 at all (just :TI on the dumps being different), in some
cases it can affect scheduling decisions for real, but still not in a way
that disregards the actual dependencies in between instructions. You can
get such scheduling differences also if you just use slightly different
compiler revision.
> isn't fixed yet. So it would be premature to manually revert Linus'
> patch yet.
>
> When PR61923 gets fixed (and backported) its testcase could be combined
> with the testcase Jakub posted earlier in this thread.
Just some data to show that the debug info differences are nothing close to
insignificant. I've built a 3.16 kernel (from Fedora 21 rpm) both normally
(which includes the -fno-var-tracking-assignments change) and with that line
in Makefile commented out. E.g. on fs/ext4/ext4.o, dwlocstat says for
-fno-var-tracking-assignments:
dwlocstat --tabulate=0.0:10,99,100 fs/ext4/ext4.o
cov% samples cumul
0.0 19620/75% 19620/75%
0..10 518/1% 20138/77%
11..20 317/1% 20455/78%
21..30 362/1% 20817/79%
31..40 349/1% 21166/81%
41..50 240/0% 21406/82%
51..60 297/1% 21703/83%
61..70 293/1% 21996/84%
71..80 355/1% 22351/85%
81..90 402/1% 22753/87%
91..99 901/3% 23654/90%
100 2425/9% 26079/100%
and without it:
dwlocstat --tabulate=0.0:10,99,100 fs/ext4/ext4.o
cov% samples cumul
0.0 8697/33% 8697/33%
0..10 431/1% 9128/35%
11..20 371/1% 9499/36%
21..30 608/2% 10107/38%
31..40 525/2% 10632/40%
41..50 461/1% 11093/42%
51..60 881/3% 11974/45%
61..70 678/2% 12652/48%
71..80 894/3% 13546/51%
81..90 1036/3% 14582/55%
91..99 949/3% 15531/59%
100 10548/40% 26079/100%
So, with -fno-var-tracking-assignments, about 75% of parameters/variables have
no location info at all in ext4.o, 9% of parameters/variables have coverage
for all instructions where the parameter/variable is in scope, the rest
something in between. Without -fno-var-tracking-assignments, only 33% of
params/vars have no location info at all, and 40% have coverage on all
instructions where they are in scope. Even for the params/vars without 100%
coverage there can be seen improvements, e.g. in the 51%-90% coverage.
Or e.g. -fno-var-tracking-assignments:
dwlocstat --tabulate=0.0:10,99,100 lib/built-in.o
cov% samples cumul
0.0 6323/64% 6323/64%
0..10 144/1% 6467/66%
11..20 138/1% 6605/67%
21..30 123/1% 6728/68%
31..40 144/1% 6872/70%
41..50 169/1% 7041/72%
51..60 130/1% 7171/73%
61..70 146/1% 7317/74%
71..80 198/2% 7515/76%
81..90 258/2% 7773/79%
91..99 541/5% 8314/85%
100 1448/14% 9762/100%
without -fno-var-tracking-assignments:
dwlocstat --tabulate=0.0:10,99,100 lib/built-in.o
cov% samples cumul
0.0 2954/30% 2954/30%
0..10 131/1% 3085/31%
11..20 110/1% 3195/32%
21..30 141/1% 3336/34%
31..40 212/2% 3548/36%
41..50 226/2% 3774/38%
51..60 254/2% 4028/41%
61..70 237/2% 4265/43%
71..80 325/3% 4590/47%
81..90 420/4% 5010/51%
91..99 425/4% 5435/55%
100 4328/44% 9763/100%
It is visible also e.g. in the section sizes on vmlinux:
-fno-var-tracking-assignments:
readelf -WS vmlinux 2>&1 | awk '/\.debug_/{printf "%s %fMB\n", $2, strtonum("0x"$6)/1024.0/1024.0}'
.debug_aranges 0.115387MB
.debug_info 96.625183MB
.debug_abbrev 2.585021MB
.debug_line 5.936069MB
.debug_frame 1.710655MB
.debug_str 1.956143MB
.debug_loc 8.713246MB
.debug_ranges 3.020081MB
without -fno-var-tracking-assignments:
readelf -WS vmlinux 2>&1 | awk '/\.debug_/{printf "%s %fMB\n", $2, strtonum("0x"$6)/1024.0/1024.0}'
.debug_aranges 0.115387MB
.debug_info 99.564449MB
.debug_abbrev 2.665213MB
.debug_line 5.936069MB
.debug_frame 1.710655MB
.debug_str 1.955960MB
.debug_loc 22.607447MB
.debug_ranges 3.020264MB
.debug_info growth is only very small (not even 3MB), only few vars have the
same value everywhere, but .debug_loc growth is significant (2.6 times
bigger).
Jakub
--
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