linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/4] x86: get rid of KERNEL_STACK

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: <20150225135321.GA767@gmail.com>
Date:	Wed, 25 Feb 2015 14:53:21 +0100
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
To:	Denys Vlasenko <dvlasenk@...hat.com>
Cc:	Denys Vlasenko <vda.linux@...glemail.com>,
	Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
	Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
	Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...mgrid.com>,
	Will Drewry <wad@...omium.org>,
	Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>, X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] x86: get rid of KERNEL_STACK_OFFSET


* Denys Vlasenko <dvlasenk@...hat.com> wrote:

> > The decision on how exactly we should fix 
> > KERNEL_STACK_OFFSET (set it to SIZEOF_PTREGS or to 
> > zero) depends on whether we switch to using PUSHes, or 
> > not. What do you think?

Yes.

> A data point. I implemented push-based creation of 
> pt_regs and benchmarked it. The patch is on top of all my 
> latest patches sent to ML.
> 
> On SandyBridge CPU, it does not get slower: seems to be 1 
> cycle faster per syscall.
> 
> We lose a number of large insns there:
> 
>     text           data     bss     dec     hex filename
> -   9863              0       0    9863    2687 entry_64.o
> +   9671              0       0    9671    25c7 entry_64.o

That's a nice reduction in I$ footprint ...

> +	/* Construct struct pt_regs on stack */
> +	pushq	$__USER_DS		/* pt_regs->ss */
> +	pushq	PER_CPU_VAR(old_rsp)	/* pt_regs->sp */
> +	pushq	%r11			/* pt_regs->flags */

Btw., this could also construct all the dwarf annotations 
in a natural, maintainable fashion - pushq_cfi and friends?

> +	pushq	$__USER_CS		/* pt_regs->cs */
> +	pushq	%rcx			/* pt_regs->ip */
> +	pushq	%rax			/* pt_regs->orig_ax */
> +	pushq	%rdi			/* pt_regs->di */
> +	pushq	%rsi			/* pt_regs->si */
> +	pushq	%rdx			/* pt_regs->dx */
> +	pushq	%rcx			/* pt_regs->cx */
> +	pushq	$-ENOSYS		/* pt_regs->ax */
> +	pushq	%r8			/* pt_regs->r8 */
> +	pushq	%r9			/* pt_regs->r9 */
> +	pushq	%r10			/* pt_regs->r10 */
> +	sub	$(7*8),%rsp /* pt_regs->r11,bp,bx,r12-15 */

So the 'SUB' there is a bit sad, but push sequences are 
generally easier to read, so I like it altogether.

Then we could indeed get rid of KERNEL_STACK_OFFSET.

Thanks,

	Ingo
--
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/