linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH V3 0/5] Hi:

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:   Sun, 6 Jan 2019 22:28:56 -0500
From:   "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>
To:     Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com>
Cc:     kvm@...r.kernel.org, virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        davem@...emloft.net
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH V3 0/5] Hi:

On Mon, Jan 07, 2019 at 10:19:03AM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
> 
> On 2019/1/3 上午4:47, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > On Sat, Dec 29, 2018 at 08:46:51PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
> > > This series tries to access virtqueue metadata through kernel virtual
> > > address instead of copy_user() friends since they had too much
> > > overheads like checks, spec barriers or even hardware feature
> > > toggling.
> > Will review, thanks!
> > One questions that comes to mind is whether it's all about bypassing
> > stac/clac.  Could you please include a performance comparison with
> > nosmap?
> > 
> 
> On machine without SMAP (Sandy Bridge):
> 
> Before: 4.8Mpps
> 
> After: 5.2Mpps

OK so would you say it's really unsafe versus safe accesses?
Or would you say it's just a better written code?

> On machine with SMAP (Broadwell):
> 
> Before: 5.0Mpps
> 
> After: 6.1Mpps
> 
> No smap: 7.5Mpps
> 
> 
> Thanks


no smap being before or after?

-- 
MST