linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 01/25] x86: Make SMAP 64-bit only

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: <aac45ef8-0196-b1c4-67ce-26dd0da6d641@redhat.com>
Date:   Thu, 21 Mar 2019 18:25:05 +0100
From:   Denys Vlasenko <dvlasenk@...hat.com>
To:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, Peter Anvin <hpa@...or.com>,
        Julien Thierry <julien.thierry@....com>,
        Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
        James Morse <james.morse@....com>, valentin.schneider@....com,
        Brian Gerst <brgerst@...il.com>,
        Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>,
        Andrew Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
        Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
        Linux List Kernel Mailing <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/25] x86: Make SMAP 64-bit only

On 3/18/19 7:10 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 18, 2019 at 10:51 AM Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
>>
>> How about I do a patch that schedules EFLAGS for both 32bit and 64bit,
>> mark this for backporting to infinity.
>>
>> And then at the end, after the objtool-ac bits land, I do a patch
>> removing the EFLAGS scheduling for x86_64.
> 
> Sounds sane to me.
> 
> And we can make it AC-conditional if it's actually shown to be visible
> from a performance standpoint.
> 
> But iirc pushf/popf isn't really that expensive - in fact I think it's
> pretty cheap when system flags don't change.

I did not see evidence of this. In my testing,
POPF is always ~20 cycles, even if popped flags are identical to current
state of flags.