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  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, 26 Oct 2017 10:11:16 +1100
From:   "Tobin C. Harding" <>
To:     "Jason A. Donenfeld" <>
Cc:, Theodore Ts'o <>,
        Linus Torvalds <>,
        Kees Cook <>,
        Paolo Bonzini <>,
        Tycho Andersen <>,
        "Roberts, William C" <>,
        Tejun Heo <>,
        Jordan Glover <>,
        Greg KH <>,
        Petr Mladek <>, Joe Perches <>,
        Ian Campbell <>,
        Sergey Senozhatsky <>,
        Catalin Marinas <>,
        Will Deacon <>,
        Steven Rostedt <>,
        Chris Fries <>,
        Dave Weinstein <>,
        Daniel Micay <>,
        Djalal Harouni <>,
        LKML <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7] printk: hash addresses printed with %p

On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 12:59:08AM +0200, Jason A. Donenfeld wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 12:27 AM, Tobin C. Harding <> wrote:
> > How good is unlikely()?
> It places that branch way at the bottom of the function so that it's
> less likely to pollute the icache.
> > It doesn't _feel_ right adding a check on every call to printk just to
> > check for a condition that was only true for the briefest time when the
> > kernel booted. But if unlikely() is good then I guess it doesn't hurt.
> >
> > I'm leaning towards the option 1, but then all those text books I read
> > are telling me to implement the simplest solution first then if we need
> > to go faster implement the more complex solution.
> >
> > This is a pretty airy fairy discussion now, but if you have an opinion
> > I'd love to hear it.
> I don't think adding a single branch there really matters that much,
> considering how many random other branches there are all over the
> printk code. However, if you really want to optimize on the little
> bits, and sensibly don't want to go with the overcomplex
> workqueue-to-statickey thing, you could consider using a plain vanilla
> `bool has_gotten_random_ptr_secret` instead of using the atomic_t. The
> reason is that there's only ever one single writer, changing from a 0
> to a 1. Basically the only thing doing the atomic_t got you was a
> cache flush surrounding the read (and the write) so that assigning
> has_gotten_random_ptr_secret=true would take effect _immediately_.
> However, since you might not necessarily about that, going with a bool
> instead will save you an expensive cache flush, while potentially
> being a microsecond out of date the first time it's used. Seems like
> an okay trade off to me. (That kind of cache latency, also, is a few
> orders of magnitude better than using a work queue for the statickey
> stuff.)

Awesome. Patch to follow.


Powered by blists - more mailing lists