linux-kernel - Re: [RFC v6 21/62] powerpc: introduce execute-only pkey

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>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <20170817234231.GA5445@ram.oc3035372033.ibm.com>
Date:   Thu, 17 Aug 2017 16:42:31 -0700
From:   Ram Pai <linuxram@...ibm.com>
To:     Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>
Cc:     Thiago Jung Bauermann <bauerman@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, corbet@....net, arnd@...db.de,
        linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mhocko@...nel.org,
        linux-mm@...ck.org, dave.hansen@...el.com, mingo@...hat.com,
        paulus@...ba.org, aneesh.kumar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
        linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
        linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org, khandual@...ux.vnet.ibm.com
Subject: Re: [RFC v6 21/62] powerpc: introduce execute-only pkey

On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 04:35:55PM -0700, Ram Pai wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 02, 2017 at 07:40:46PM +1000, Michael Ellerman wrote:
> > Thiago Jung Bauermann <bauerman@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> writes:
> > 
> > > Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au> writes:
> > >
> > >> Thiago Jung Bauermann <bauerman@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> writes:
> > >>> Ram Pai <linuxram@...ibm.com> writes:
> > >> ...
> > >>>> +
> > >>>> +	/* We got one, store it and use it from here on out */
> > >>>> +	if (need_to_set_mm_pkey)
> > >>>> +		mm->context.execute_only_pkey = execute_only_pkey;
> > >>>> +	return execute_only_pkey;
> > >>>> +}
> > >>>
> > >>> If you follow the code flow in __execute_only_pkey, the AMR and UAMOR
> > >>> are read 3 times in total, and AMR is written twice. IAMR is read and
> > >>> written twice. Since they are SPRs and access to them is slow (or isn't
> > >>> it?),
> > >>
> > >> SPRs read/writes are slow, but they're not *that* slow in comparison to
> > >> a system call (which I think is where this code is being called?).
> > >
> > > Yes, this code runs on mprotect and mmap syscalls if the memory is
> > > requested to have execute but not read nor write permissions.
> > 
> > Yep. That's not in the fast path for key usage, ie. the fast path is
> > userspace changing the AMR itself, and the overhead of a syscall is
> > already hundreds of cycles.
> > 
> > >> So we should try to avoid too many SPR read/writes, but at the same time
> > >> we can accept more than the minimum if it makes the code much easier to
> > >> follow.
> > >
> > > Ok. Ram had asked me to suggest a way to optimize the SPR reads and
> > > writes and I came up with the patch below. Do you think it's worth it?
> > 
> > At a glance no I don't think it is. Sorry you spent that much time on it.
> > 
> > I think we can probably reduce the number of SPR accesses without
> > needing to go to that level of complexity.
> > 
> > But don't throw the patch away, I may eat my words once I have the full
> > series applied and am looking at it hard - at the moment I'm just
> > reviewing the patches piecemeal as I get time.
> 

Thiago's patch does save some cycles. I dont feel like throwing his
work. I agree, It should be considered after applying all the patches. 
 
RP

-- 
Ram Pai