[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180111220659.GD15528@1wt.eu>
Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2018 23:06:59 +0100
From: Willy Tarreau <w@....eu>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: One Thousand Gnomes <gnomes@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>,
Olivier Galibert <galibert@...ox.com>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>,
Brian Gerst <brgerst@...il.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 6/6] x86/entry/pti: don't switch PGD on when
pti_disable is set
On Thu, Jan 11, 2018 at 01:28:18PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> The traditional fast system call to test is getppid().
>
> write() goes through a lot more code.
Just tried getppid() now, it's relatively similar (slightly slower than
write(-1) though, maybe that one aborts very early) :
PTI=on : 920ms for 3 million calls
PTI=off (prctl) : 230ms for 3 million calls
PTI=off (boot) : 215ms for 3 million calls
The small difference between the last two very likely comes from the few
instructions avoided thanks to the alternatives when pti=off is used at
boot.
So yes here it's trivial to tell if it's on or off :-)
Willy
Powered by blists - more mailing lists