linux-kernel - Re: [RFC 0/5] CR4 handling improvements

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CALCETrWmtOPP115dCo1vEckNVdF5EZceu+r-C8XU9HzHGf62uQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Fri, 24 Oct 2014 15:14:33 -0700
From:	Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
To:	Vince Weaver <vince@...ter.net>
Cc:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Valdis Kletnieks <Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
	Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
	Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
	Erik Bosman <ebn310@....vu.nl>
Subject: Re: [RFC 0/5] CR4 handling improvements

On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 5:41 AM, Vince Weaver <vince@...ter.net> wrote:
> On Thu, 23 Oct 2014, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 01:05:49PM -0400, Vince Weaver wrote:
>
>> > There are various reasons why you might want to start events at times
>> > other than the beginning of the program.  Some people don't like kernel
>> > multiplexing so they start/stop manually if they want to switch eventsets.
>>
>> I suppose you could pre-create all events and use ioctl()s to start/stop
>> them where/when desired, this should be faster I think. But yes, this is
>> not a use-case I've though much about.
>
> The scheduling step is most of what makes the perf_event start call have
> high overhead.  The other annoyance is the fact that due to the NMI
> watchdog your can successfully perf_event_open() an event group but still
> have it fail at start time, so a lot of code has to be done that does
> extraneous open/start/close calls to make sure the events really fit.
>
>> MAP_POPULATE is your friend there, but yes manually prefaulting is
>> perfectly fine too, and the HPC people are quite familiar with the
>> concept, they do it for a lot of things.
>
> MAP_POPULATE actually has noticably more overhead than manually
> prefaulting.  It's on my todo list to drop ftrace on there and find out
> why, but I've been stuck chasing kernel-crashing fuzzer bugs instead in my
> spare time.

Have you checked recently?  IIRC Michael Lespinasse put some effort
into improving MAP_POPULATE recently.

>
> perfctr and possibly perfmon2 would automatically pre-fault the mmap page
> for you in the kernel, so there was no need for the user to do it.
>
>
> In any case I wasn't really trying to make trouble here, it's just I came
> across the people using rdpmc w/o perf_event just the other day (on USENET
> of all places).  They were so happy it worked w/o patches now, that I felt
> bad breaking it to them that there were patches floating around that were
> going to make their usecase not work anymore.
>
> I guess like all things though, you can't have anything fun and useful in
> the kernel without the security people taking it away.

I'm sympathetic enough to this use case that I don't really mind
adding a bit of code to support rdpmc=2 meaning that rdpmc is always
allowed.  Switching in and out of rdpmc=2 mode will be expensive
(static key and IPI to all CPUs).  PeterZ, is that OK with you?

--Andy

>
> Vince



-- 
Andy Lutomirski
AMA Capital Management, LLC
--
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/