linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 00/10] x86: undwarf unwinder

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:   Thu, 1 Jun 2017 07:47:05 -0500
From:   Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:     Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, x86@...nel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, live-patching@...r.kernel.org,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>, Jiri Slaby <jslaby@...e.cz>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 00/10] x86: undwarf unwinder

On Thu, Jun 01, 2017 at 02:17:21PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 01, 2017 at 06:58:20AM -0500, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> > > Being able to generate more optimal code in the hottest code paths of the kernel 
> > > is the _real_, primary upstream kernel benefit of a different debuginfo method - 
> > > which has to be weighed against the pain of introducing a new unwinder. But this 
> > > submission does not talk about that aspect at all, which should be fixed I think.
> > 
> > Actually I devoted an entire one-sentence paragraph to performance in
> > the documentation:
> > 
> >   The simpler debuginfo format also enables the unwinder to be relatively
> >   fast, which is important for perf and lockdep.
> > 
> > But I'll try to highlight that a little more.
> 
> That's relative to a DWARF unwinder.

Yes.

> It doesn't appear to be possible to get anywhere near a frame-pointer
> unwinder due to having to do this log(n) lookup for every single
> frame.

Hm, is there something faster, yet not substantially bigger?  Hash?
Trie?

-- 
Josh