linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/4] x86, pagetable: ignore A/D bits in pte/pmd/pud

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

Date:	Thu, 14 Jul 2016 08:13:56 +0200
From:	Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
To:	Dave Hansen <dave@...1.net>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
	torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
	bp@...en8.de, ak@...ux.intel.com, dave.hansen@...el.com,
	dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] x86, pagetable: ignore A/D bits in pte/pmd/pud_none()

On Wed 13-07-16 08:47:51, Dave Hansen wrote:
> On 07/13/2016 08:21 AM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> >> > This adds a tiny amount of overhead to all pte_none() checks.
> >> > I doubt we'll be able to measure it anywhere.
> > It would be better to introduce the overhead only for the affected
> > cpu models but I guess this is also acceptable. Would it be too
> > complicated to use alternatives for that?
> 
> The patch as it stands ends up doing a one-instruction change in
> pte_none().  It goes from
> 
>     64c8:       48 85 ff                test   %rdi,%rdi
> 
> to
> 
>     64a8:       48 f7 c7 9f ff ff ff    test   $0xffffffffffffff9f,%rdi
> 
> So it essentially eats 4 bytes of icache more than it did before.  But,
> it's the same number of instructions, and I can't imagine that the CPU
> will have any more trouble with a test against an immediate than a test
> against 0.

I see. Thanks for the clarification.

> We could theoretically do alternatives for this, but we would at *best*
> end up with 4 bytes of noops.  So, unless the processor likes decoding 4
> noops better than 4 bytes of immediate as part of an instruction, we'll
> not win anything.  *Plus* the ugliness of the assembly that we'll need
> to have the compiler guarantee that the PTE ends up in %rdi.

Agreed!
-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs