linux-kernel - Re: [RFC][CFT][PATCHSET v1] uaccess unification

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: <09ead054-f62a-76e2-88e0-8d18592d2604@synopsys.com>
Date:   Wed, 29 Mar 2017 17:02:45 -0700
From:   Vineet Gupta <Vineet.Gupta1@...opsys.com>
To:     Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
CC:     "linux-arch@...r.kernel.org" <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Richard Henderson <rth@...ddle.net>,
        Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
        Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
        Haavard Skinnemoen <hskinnemoen@...il.com>,
        Steven Miao <realmz6@...il.com>,
        Jesper Nilsson <jesper.nilsson@...s.com>,
        Mark Salter <msalter@...hat.com>,
        Yoshinori Sato <ysato@...rs.sourceforge.jp>,
        "Richard Kuo" <rkuo@...eaurora.org>,
        Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>,
        "Geert Uytterhoeven" <geert@...ux-m68k.org>,
        James Hogan <james.hogan@...tec.com>,
        Michal Simek <monstr@...str.eu>,
        David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
        "Ley Foon Tan" <lftan@...era.com>,
        Jonas Bonn <Jonas.Nilsson@...opsys.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC][CFT][PATCHSET v1] uaccess unification

On 03/29/2017 04:42 PM, Al Viro wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 02:14:22PM -0700, Vineet Gupta wrote:
> 
>>> BTW, I wonder if inlining all of the copy_{to,from}_user() is actually a win.
>>
>> Just to be clear, your series was doing this for everyone.
> 
> Huh?  It's just that most of architectures *were* inlining that;
> arc change was unintentional (copy_from_user/copy_to_user went
> uninlined, which your patch deals with), but it's not that I'm forcing
> inlining on every architecture out there.

That is correct - I didn't mean to say you changed it per-se , but that I saw
INLINE_COPY* all over the place but not for ARC :-)


>>> It might
>>> end up being a win, but that's not apriori obvious...  Do you have any
>>> profiling results in that area?
>>
>> Unfortunately not at the moment. The reason for adding out-of-line variant was not
>> so much as performance but to improve the footprint for -Os case (some customer I
>> think).
> 
> Just to make it clear - I'm less certain than Linus that uninlined is uniformly
> better, but I have a strong suspicion that on most architectures it *is*.
> And not just in terms of kernel size - I would expect better speed as well.
> The only reason why these knobs are there is that I want to separate the
> "who should switch to uninlined" from this series and allow for the possibility
> that for some architectures inlined will really turn out to be better.
> I do _not_ expect that there'll be many of those; if it turns out that there's
> none, I'll be only glad to make the guts of copy_{to,from}_user() always
> out of line.
> 
> IOW your patch reverts an unintentional change of behaviour, but I really
> wonder if that (out-of-line guts of copy_{to,from}_user) isn't an overall
> win for arc.  I've applied your patch, but it would be nice if you could
> arrange for testing with and without inlining and post the results.  The
> same goes for all architectures; again, I would expect out-of-line to end up
> a win on most of them.

I guess I can in next day or two - but mind you the inline version for ARC is kind
of special vs. other arches. We have this "manual" constant propagation to elide
the unrolled LD/ST for 1-15 byte stragglers, when @sz is constant. In the
out-of-line version, we loose all of that and the code needs to fall thru all the
cases. We can possibly improve that by re-arranging the checks - so exit early if
no stragglers etc ...