linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v9 04/10] x86: refcount: prevent gcc distortions

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]

Message-ID: <3F2AE080-9F76-441D-A8FA-7AB7B8DF46BD@zytor.com>
Date:   Thu, 04 Oct 2018 02:17:24 -0700
From:   hpa@...or.com
To:     Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, Nadav Amit <namit@...are.com>
CC:     Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Jan Beulich <JBeulich@...e.com>,
        Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 04/10] x86: refcount: prevent gcc distortions

On October 4, 2018 2:12:22 AM PDT, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org> wrote:
>
>* Nadav Amit <namit@...are.com> wrote:
>
>> I can run some tests. (@hpa: I thought you asked about the -pipe
>overhead;
>> perhaps I misunderstood).
>
>Well, tests are unlikely to show the overhead of extra lines of this
>magnitude, unless done very carefully, yet the added bloat exists and
>is not even
>mentioned by the changelog, it just says:
>
>Subject: [PATCH v9 02/10] Makefile: Prepare for using macros for inline
>asm
>
>  Using macros for inline assembly improves both readability and
>compilation decisions that are distorted by big assembly blocks that
>use
>  alternative sections. Compile macros.S and use it to assemble all C
>  files. Currently, only x86 will use it.
>
>> I guess you regard to the preprocessing of the assembler. Note that
>the C 
>> preprocessing of macros.S obviously happens only once. That’s the
>reason
>> I assumed it’s not that expensive.
>
>True - so first we build macros.s, and that gets included in every C
>file build, right?
>
>macros.s is smaller: 275 lines only in the distro test build I tried,
>which looks
>a lot better than my first 4,200 lines guesstimate.
>
>> Anyhow, I remember that we discussed at some point doing something
>like
>> ‘asm(“.include XXX.s”)’ and somebody said it is not good, but I don’t
>> remember why and don’t see any reason it is so. Unless I am missing
>> something, I think it is possible to take each individual header and
>> preprocess the assembly part of into a separate .s file. Then we can
>put in
>> the C part of the header ‘asm(".include XXX.s”)’.
>> 
>> What do you think?
>
>Hm, this looks quite complex - macros.s is better I think. Also, 275
>straight assembly lines is 
>a lot better than 4,200.
>
>Another, separate question I wanted to ask: how do we ensure that the
>kernel stays fixed?
>I.e. is there some tooling we can use to actually measure whether
>there's bad inlining decisions 
>done, to detect all these bad patterns that cause bad GCC code
>generation?
>
>Thanks,
>
>	Ingo

The assembly output from GCC is quite volumious; I doubt tacking a few hundred lines on will matter one iota.
-- 
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.