linux-kernel - Re: 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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Date:	Tue, 30 Jun 2015 14:32:23 -0700
From:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To:	Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>, gcc@....gnu.org,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: gcc feature request / RFC: extra clobbered regs

On 06/30/2015 02:22 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> 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.)
> 

Some gcc targets have done this in the past.  There are command-line
options to do that, but using attributes you have to handle cross-ABI
compilation.

However, I don't see this being done in the upstream gcc.

Keep in mind the runway that we'll need, though.

	-hpa


--
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/