linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v8 1/4] vmalloc: Add __vmalloc_node_try

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: <7e7fdb81bd2ed9ca9514a97d44683bfa1267a55d.camel@intel.com>
Date:   Wed, 7 Nov 2018 20:03:45 +0000
From:   "Edgecombe, Rick P" <rick.p.edgecombe@...el.com>
To:     "akpm@...ux-foundation.org" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
CC:     "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "daniel@...earbox.net" <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        "jeyu@...nel.org" <jeyu@...nel.org>,
        "keescook@...omium.org" <keescook@...omium.org>,
        "jannh@...gle.com" <jannh@...gle.com>,
        "willy@...radead.org" <willy@...radead.org>,
        "tglx@...utronix.de" <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        "linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        "arjan@...ux.intel.com" <arjan@...ux.intel.com>,
        "x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>,
        "kristen@...ux.intel.com" <kristen@...ux.intel.com>,
        "hpa@...or.com" <hpa@...or.com>,
        "mingo@...hat.com" <mingo@...hat.com>,
        "kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com" 
        <kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com>,
        "Hansen, Dave" <dave.hansen@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 1/4] vmalloc: Add __vmalloc_node_try_addr function

On Tue, 2018-11-06 at 13:05 -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Fri,  2 Nov 2018 12:25:17 -0700 Rick Edgecombe <rick.p.edgecombe@...el.com>
> wrote:
> 
> > Create __vmalloc_node_try_addr function that tries to allocate at a specific
> > address without triggering any lazy purging. In order to support this
> > behavior
> > a try_addr argument was plugged into several of the static helpers.
> 
> Please explain (in the changelog) why lazy purging is considered to be
> a problem.  Preferably with some form of measurements, or at least a
> hand-wavy guesstimate of the cost.
Sure, Ill update it to be more clear. The problem is that when
__vmalloc_node_range fails to allocate (in this case tries in a single random
spot that doesn't fit), it triggers a purge_vmap_area_lazy and then retries the
allocation in the same spot. It doesn't make as much sense in this case when we
are not trying over a large area. While it will usually not flush the TLB, it
does do extra work every time for an unlikely case in this situation of a lazy
free area blocking the allocation.

The average allocation time in ns for different versions measured by the
included kselftest:

Modules	Vmalloc optimization	No Vmalloc Optimization	Existing Module KASLR
1000	1433			1993			3821
2000	2295			3681			7830
3000	4424			7450			13012
4000	7746			13824			18106
5000	12721			21852			22572
6000	19724			33926			26443
7000	27638			47427			30473
8000	37745			64443			34200

The other optimization is not kmalloc-ing in __get_vm_area_node until after the
address was tried, which IIRC had a smaller but still noticeable performance
boost.

These allocations are not taking very long, but it may show up on systems with
very high usage of the module space (BPF JITs). If the trade-off of touching
vmalloc doesn't seem worth it to people, I'm happy to remove the optimizations.

> > This also changes logic in __get_vm_area_node to be faster in cases where
> > allocations fail due to no space, which is a lot more common when trying
> > specific addresses.