linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RFC 0/3] Static calls

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: <20181109145918.28df6616@gandalf.local.home>
Date:   Fri, 9 Nov 2018 14:59:18 -0500
From:   Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To:     Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>
Cc:     Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>,
        Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>,
        Jason Baron <jbaron@...mai.com>, Jiri Kosina <jkosina@...e.cz>,
        David Laight <David.Laight@...lab.com>,
        Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 0/3] Static calls

On Fri, 9 Nov 2018 13:44:09 -0600
Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com> wrote:

> On Fri, Nov 09, 2018 at 02:37:03PM -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > On Fri, 9 Nov 2018 11:05:51 -0800
> > Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net> wrote:
> >   
> > > > Not sure what Andy was talking about, but I'm currently implementing
> > > > tracepoints to use this, as tracepoints use indirect calls, and are a
> > > > prime candidate for static calls, as I showed in my original RFC of
> > > > this feature.
> > > > 
> > > >     
> > > 
> > > Indeed.
> > > 
> > > Although I had assumed that tracepoints already had appropriate jump label magic.  
> > 
> > It does. But that's not the problem I was trying to solve. It's that
> > tracing took a 8% noise dive with retpolines when enabled (hackbench
> > slowed down by 8% with all the trace events enabled compared to all
> > trace events enabled without retpoline). That is, normal users (those
> > not tracinng) are not affected by trace events slowing down by
> > retpoline. Those that care about performance when they are tracing, are
> > affected by retpoline, quite drastically.
> > 
> > I'm doing another test run and measurements, to see how the unoptimized
> > trampolines help, followed by the trampoline case.  
> 
> Are you sure you're using unoptimized?  Optimized is the default on
> x86-64 (with my third patch).
> 

Yes, because I haven't applied that third patch yet ;-)

Then I'll apply it and see how much that improves things.

-- Steve