linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 1/5] getcpu_cache system call: cache CPU number of running thread

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: <20160227145809.GD6356@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date:	Sat, 27 Feb 2016 15:58:09 +0100
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>
Cc:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Russell King <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-api <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>,
	Paul Turner <pjt@...gle.com>, Andrew Hunter <ahh@...gle.com>,
	Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
	Dave Watson <davejwatson@...com>, Chris Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
	Ben Maurer <bmaurer@...com>, rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>,
	Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
	Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
	Michael Kerrisk <mtk.manpages@...il.com>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/5] getcpu_cache system call: cache CPU number of
 running thread

On Sat, Feb 27, 2016 at 02:15:01PM +0000, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> I'm concerned that this thread-local ABI structure may become messy.
> Let's just imagine how we would first introduce a "cpu_id" field (int32_t),
> and eventually add a "seqnum" field for rseq in the future (unsigned long).

The rseq seq number can be uint32_t, in fact it is in Paul's patches.

(This is true because every seq increment will guarantee a userspace
exception and reload of the value, its impossible to wrap the thing and
get a false positive.)

Paul's patches have the following structure:

struct thread_local_abi {
	union {
		struct {
			u32	cpu_id;
			u32	seq;
		};
		u64 cpu_seq;
	};
	unsigned long post_commit_ip;
};

Although he allows the post_commit_ip to be a separate field (which I
don't think makes sense).

> /* This structure needs to be aligned on pointer size. */

I would mandate the thing be cacheline aligned, and sod packed, that can
lead to horrible layouts.

> If the goal is really to keep the burden on the task struct
> small, we could use kmalloc()/kfree() to allocate and free an
> array of pointers to the various per-thread features, rather

*groan*, no that's even worse, then you get even more loads to update
the fields. The point is to reduce the total overhead of having this
stuff.

Having a single pointer with known offsets is best because then its
guaranteed a single load, then having the whole data structure in a
single cacheline again saves on memops, you can only miss once.