linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 00/10] x86: ORC unwinder (previously undwarf)

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: <20170713041524.GC3044@two.firstfloor.org>
Date:   Wed, 12 Jul 2017 21:15:25 -0700
From:   Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
To:     Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>
Cc:     Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
        Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>, 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>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 00/10] x86: ORC unwinder (previously undwarf)

On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 05:03:00AM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Wed, 2017-07-12 at 15:30 -0700, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com> writes:
> > >
> > > The ORC data format does have a few downsides compared to DWARF.  The
> > > ORC unwind tables take up ~1MB more memory than DWARF eh_frame tables.
> > >
> > Can we have an option to just use dwarf instead? For people
> > who don't want to waste a MB+ to solve a problem that doesn't
> > exist (as proven by many years of opensuse kernel experience)
> 
> Sure the dwarf unwinder works well for crashes, but at the price of
> demolishing ftrace/perf utility.

You mean the unwind performance?

That's a valid concern, but neither ORC nor dwarf are likely
to address it. However most usages of ftrace/perf shouldn't be that
depending on unwind performance -- just lower the frequency of your
events. 

The only possible win is if the win from not using FP code is
significant enough. On the x86 side the only modern CPUs that should really
care about this are Atoms.

-Andi