linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/6] use memcpy_mcsafe() for copy_to

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Tue, 1 May 2018 22:37:47 -0700
From:   Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>
To:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:     "linux-nvdimm@...ts.01.org" <linux-nvdimm@...ts.01.org>,
        Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
        "the arch/x86 maintainers" <x86@...nel.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/6] use memcpy_mcsafe() for copy_to_iter()

On Tue, May 1, 2018 at 9:14 PM, Linus Torvalds
<torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
> On Tue, May 1, 2018 at 9:00 PM Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>
> wrote:
>> >
>> > I  have some dim memory of "rep movs doesn't work well for pmem", but
> does
>> > it *seriously* need unrolling to cacheline boundaries? And if it does,
> who
>> > designed it, and why is anybody using it?
>> >
>
>> I think this is an FAQ from the original submission, in fact some guy
>> named "Linus Torvalds" asked [1]:
>
> Oh, I already mentioned that  I remembered that "rep movs" didn't work well.
>
> But there's a big gap between "just use 'rep movs' and 'do some cacheline
> unrollong'".
>
> Why isn't it just doing a simple word-at-a-time loop and letting the CPU do
> the unrolling that it will already do on its own?
>
> I may have gotten that answered too, but there's no comment in the code
> about why it's such a disgusting mess, so I've long since forgotten _why_
> it's such a disgusting mess.
>
> That loop unrolling _used_ to be "hey, it's simple".
>
> Now it's "Hey, that's truly disgusting", with the separate fault handling
> for every single case in the unrolled loop.
>
> Just look at the nasty _ASM_EXTABLE_FAULT() uses and those E_cache_x error
> labels, and getting the number rof bytes copied right.
>
> And then ask yourself "what if we didn't unroll that thing 8 times, AND WE
> COULD GET RID OF ALL OF THOSE?"
>
> Maybe you already did ask yourself.  But I'm asking because it sure isn't
> explained in the code.

Ah, sorry. Yeah, I don't see a good reason to keep the unrolling. It
would definitely clean up the fault handling, I'll respin.