linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] vfs: avoid recopying file names in getname

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: <20150413063327.GB25517@fixme-laptop.cn.ibm.com>
Date:	Mon, 13 Apr 2015 14:33:27 +0800
From:	Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>
To:	Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
Cc:	linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Paul Moore <pmoore@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] vfs: avoid recopying file names in getname_flags

Hi Al,

On Sun, Apr 12, 2015 at 12:56:55AM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 07, 2015 at 04:38:26PM +0800, Boqun Feng wrote:
> > Ping again...
> 
> What exactly does it buy us?  You need a pathname just a bit under 4Kb, which,
> with all due respect, is an extremely rare case.  Resulting code is more
> complicated, we _still_ copy twice (sure, the second time is for 16 bytes or
> so, but...), instead of "compare with the address of embedded array" we get
> the loveliness like
> > > > +	if (name->name != ((char *)name - EMBEDDED_NAME_MAX)) {
> this...   _And_, on top of everything else, we get name and name->name
> guaranteed to hit different cachelines, in all cases, including the common
> ones.
> 
> What for?  It's not as if userland memory had been communicated with by
> IP over carrier pigeons, after all, and the cost of 4Kb worth of
> (essentially) memcpy() is going to be
> 	a) incurred in extremely rare case
> and
> 	b) be dwarfed by the work we need to _do_ with what we'd copied.
> After all, that pathname is going to be parsed and traversed - all 4Kb
> worth of it.
> 
> So what's the point?

Thank you for your response.

Well, my original purpose of doing this is to avoid recopying file
names, I thought although long file names are race, it's worthy if we
can optimize without affecting common cases. But you are right, I fail
to take cachelines into consideration, so comman cases are affected.

Before I totally give it up, I'd like to run some performance tests
about this patch, which I should do before sending the patch, I will do
better next time ;-)
If I find something new, I will let you know.

Thanks again for your comments.

Regards,
Boqun Feng

Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped