linux-kernel - Re: [patch 5/9] x86/ioport: Reduce ioperm impact for sane usage further

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: <CAHk-=wjXcS--G3Wd8ZGEOdCNRAWPaUneyN1ryShQL-_yi1kvOA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 6 Nov 2019 17:11:15 -0800
From:   Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc:     LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "the arch/x86 maintainers" <x86@...nel.org>,
        Stephen Hemminger <stephen@...workplumber.org>,
        Willy Tarreau <w@....eu>, Juergen Gross <jgross@...e.com>,
        Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@...el.com>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Subject: Re: [patch 5/9] x86/ioport: Reduce ioperm impact for sane usage further

On Wed, Nov 6, 2019 at 12:57 PM Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de> wrote:
>
> Calculate both the position of the first zero bit and the last zero bit to
> limit the range which needs to be copied. This does not solve the problem
> when the previous tasked had only byte 0 cleared and the next one has only
> byte 65535 cleared, but trying to solve that would be too complex and
> heavyweight for the context switch path. As the ioperm() usage is very rare
> the case which is optimized is the single task/process which uses ioperm().

Hmm.

I may read this patch wrong, but from what I can tell, if we really
have just one process with an io bitmap, we're doing unnecessary
copies.

If we really have just one process that has an iobitmap, I think we
could just keep the bitmap of that process entirely unchanged. Then,
when we switch away from it, we set the io_bitmap_base to an invalid
base outside the TSS segment, and when we switch back, we set it back
to the valid one. No actual bitmap copies at all.

So I think that rather than the "begin/end offset" games, we should
perhaps have a "what was the last process that used the IO bitmap for
this TSS" pointer (and, I think, some sequence counter, so that when
the process updates its bitmap, it invalidates that case)?

 Of course, you can do *nboth*, but if we really think that the common
case is "one special process", then I think the begin/end offset is
useless, but a "last bitmap process" would be very useful.

Am I missing something?

               Linus