linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] lib/strscpy: remove word-at-a-time optimization.

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: <317d8c15-b4af-c0d6-31c9-30e311327b3f@prevas.dk>
Date:   Wed, 24 Jan 2018 09:47:41 +0100
From:   Rasmus Villemoes <rasmus.villemoes@...vas.dk>
To:     Andrey Ryabinin <aryabinin@...tuozzo.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
CC:     <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        Eryu Guan <eguan@...hat.com>,
        Alexander Potapenko <glider@...gle.com>,
        Chris Metcalf <metcalf@...m.mit.edu>,
        David Laight <David.Laight@...LAB.COM>,
        Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>, <stable@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] lib/strscpy: remove word-at-a-time optimization.

On 2018-01-09 17:37, Andrey Ryabinin wrote:
> strscpy() performs the word-at-a-time optimistic reads. So it may
> may access the memory past the end of the object, which is perfectly fine
> since strscpy() doesn't use that (past-the-end) data and makes sure the
> optimistic read won't cross a page boundary.
> 
> But KASAN doesn't know anything about that so it will complain.
> There are several possible ways to address this issue, but none
> are perfect. See https://lkml.kernel.org/r/9f0a9cf6-51f7-cd1f-5dc6-6d510a7b8ec4@virtuozzo.com
> 
> It seems the best solution is to simply disable word-at-a-time
> optimization. My trivial testing shows that byte-at-a-time
> could be up to x4.3 times slower than word-at-a-time.
> It may seems like a lot, but it's actually ~1.2e-10 sec per symbol vs
> ~4.8e-10 sec per symbol on modern hardware. And we don't use strscpy()
> in a performance critical paths to copy large amounts of data,
> so it shouldn't matter anyway.
> 
> Fixes: 30035e45753b7 ("string: provide strscpy()")
> Signed-off-by: Andrey Ryabinin <aryabinin@...tuozzo.com>
> Cc: <stable@...r.kernel.org>
>

Acked-by: Rasmus Villemoes <linux@...musvillemoes.dk>

Your microbenchmark even favours word-at-a-time slightly, since in
practice I think at least one of src or dst will be unaligned a lot of
the time, and while x86 may HAVE_EFFICIENT_UNALIGNED_ACCESS, it's still
a little more expensive than doing aligned access. And since strscpy is
not called that often, I expect some of the ~300 bytes of instruction
cache it occupies can be put to better use elsewhere.

Rasmus