linux-kernel - gcc feature request / RFC: extra clobbered regs

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CALCETrX6j9vBZR7RirXf8usz1Y4f-1TnVaYTVg0_PgQCeWZnRg@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Tue, 30 Jun 2015 14:22:33 -0700
From:	Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>
To:	gcc@....gnu.org,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: gcc feature request / RFC: extra clobbered regs

Hi all-

I'm working on a massive set of cleanups to Linux's syscall handling.
We currently have a nasty optimization in which we don't save rbx,
rbp, r12, r13, r14, and r15 on x86_64 before calling C functions.
This works, but it makes the code a huge mess.  I'd rather save all
regs in asm and then call C code.

Unfortunately, this will add five cycles (on SNB) to one of the
hottest paths in the kernel.  To counteract it, I have a gcc feature
request that might not be all that crazy.  When writing C functions
intended to be called from asm, what if we could do:

__attribute__((extra_clobber("rbx", "rbp", "r12", "r13", "r14",
"r15"))) void func(void);

This will save enough pushes and pops that it could easily give us our
five cycles back and then some.  It's also easy to be compatible with
old GCC versions -- we could just omit the attribute, since preserving
a register is always safe.

Thoughts?  Is this totally crazy?  Is it easy to implement?

(I'm not necessarily suggesting that we do this for the syscall bodies
themselves.  I want to do it for the entry and exit helpers, so we'd
still lose the five cycles in the full fast-path case, but we'd do
better in the slower paths, and the slower paths are becoming
increasingly important in real workloads.)

Thanks,
Andy
--
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/