linux-kernel - Re: [RFC v2 0/8] arm64: MMU enabled kexec relocation

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: <20190731165007.GJ39768@lakrids.cambridge.arm.com>
Date:   Wed, 31 Jul 2019 17:50:07 +0100
From:   Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>
To:     Pavel Tatashin <pasha.tatashin@...een.com>
Cc:     James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>, Sasha Levin <sashal@...nel.org>,
        "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
        kexec mailing list <kexec@...ts.infradead.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>, will@...nel.org,
        Linux Doc Mailing List <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@....com>,
        James Morse <james.morse@....com>,
        Vladimir Murzin <vladimir.murzin@....com>,
        Matthias Brugger <matthias.bgg@...il.com>,
        Bhupesh Sharma <bhsharma@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC v2 0/8] arm64: MMU enabled kexec relocation

On Wed, Jul 31, 2019 at 12:40:51PM -0400, Pavel Tatashin wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 31, 2019 at 12:33 PM Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Pavel,
> >
> > Generally, the cover letter should state up-front what the goal is (or
> > what problem you're trying to solve). It would be really helpful to have
> > that so that we understand what you're trying to achieve, and why.

[...]

> > > Here is the current data from the real hardware:
> > > (because of bug, I forced EL1 mode by setting el2_switch always to zero in
> > > cpu_soft_restart()):
> > >
> > > For this experiment, the size of kernel plus initramfs is 25M. If initramfs
> > > was larger, than the improvements would be even greater, as time spent in
> > > relocation is proportional to the size of relocation.
> > >
> > > Previously:
> > > kernel shutdown       0.022131328s
> > > relocation    0.440510736s
> > > kernel startup        0.294706768s
> >
> > In total this takes ~0.76s...
> >
> > >
> > > Relocation was taking: 58.2% of reboot time
> > >
> > > Now:
> > > kernel shutdown       0.032066576s
> > > relocation    0.022158152s
> > > kernel startup        0.296055880s
> >
> > ... and this takes ~0.35s
> >
> > So do we really need this complexity for a few blinks of an eye?
> 
> Yes, we have an extremely tight reboot budget, 0.35s is not an acceptable waste.

Could you please elaborate on your use-case?

Understanfin what you're trying to achieve would help us to understand
which solutions make sense.

Thanks,
Mark.