linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH for 4.18 12/23] cpu_opv: Provide cpu

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]

Date:   Mon, 16 Apr 2018 12:26:35 -0700
From:   Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:     Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>
Cc:     Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>,
        Dave Watson <davejwatson@...com>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-api <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>,
        Paul Turner <pjt@...gle.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Russell King <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Andrew Hunter <ahh@...gle.com>,
        Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>, Chris Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
        Ben Maurer <bmaurer@...com>, rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
        Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
        Michael Kerrisk <mtk.manpages@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH for 4.18 12/23] cpu_opv: Provide cpu_opv system call (v7)

On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 12:21 PM, Mathieu Desnoyers
<mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com> wrote:
>
> And I try very hard to avoid being told I'm the one breaking
> user-space. ;-)

You *can't* be breaking user space. User space doesn't use this yet.

That's actually why I'd like to start with the minimal set - to make
sure we don't introduce features that will come back to bite us later.

The one compelling use case I saw was a memory allocator that used
this for getting per-CPU (vs per-thread) memory scaling.

That code didn't need the cpu_opv system call at all.

And if somebody does a ldload of a malloc library, and then wants to
analyze the behavior of a program, maybe they should ldload their own
malloc routines first? That's pretty much par for the course for those
kinds of projects.

So I'd much rather we first merge the non-contentious parts that
actually have some numbers for "this improves performance and makes a
nice fancy malloc possible".

As it is, the cpu_opv seems to be all about theory, not about actual need.

              Linus