linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/4] x86: save user rsp in pt

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: <20150310132147.GB26185@gmail.com>
Date:	Tue, 10 Mar 2015 14:21:48 +0100
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
To:	Denys Vlasenko <dvlasenk@...hat.com>
Cc:	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@...nel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] x86: save user rsp in pt_regs->sp on SYSCALL64
 fastpath


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

> > So there are now +2 instructions (5 instead of 3) in the 
> > system_call path, but there are -2 instructions in the SYSRETQ 
> > path,
> 
> Unfortunately, no. [...]

So I assumed that it was an equivalent transformation, given that none 
of the changelogs spelled out the increase in overhead ...

> [...] There is only this change in SYSRETQ path, which simply 
> changes where we get RSP from:
> 
> @@ -293,7 +289,7 @@ ret_from_sys_call:
>  	CFI_REGISTER	rip,rcx
>  	movq	EFLAGS(%rsp),%r11
>  	/*CFI_REGISTER	rflags,r11*/
> -	movq	PER_CPU_VAR(old_rsp), %rsp
> +	movq	RSP(%rsp),%rsp
>  	/*
>  	 * 64bit SYSRET restores rip from rcx,
>  	 * rflags from r11 (but RF and VM bits are forced to 0),
> 
> Most likely, no change in execution speed here.
> At best, it is one cycle faster somewhere in address generation unit
> because for PER_CPU_VAR() address evaluation, GS base is nonzero.
> 
> Since this patch does add two extra MOVs,
> I did benchmark these patches. They add exactly one cycle
> to system call code path on my Sandy Bridge CPU.

Hm, but that's the wrong direction, we should try to make it faster, 
and to clean it up - but making it slower without really good reasons 
isn't good.

Is 'usersp' really that much of a complication?

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/