linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH v2 11/13] powerpc/syscall: Avoid stack frame in likely part of syscall_call

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: <2447d216-1948-c121-4843-6ae5cac6f377@c-s.fr>
Date:   Mon, 6 Apr 2020 20:19:18 +0200
From:   Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@....fr>
To:     Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@...il.com>,
        Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
        Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>, msuchanek@...e.de,
        Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 11/13] powerpc/syscall: Avoid stack frame in likely
 part of syscall_call_exception()



Le 06/04/2020 à 03:29, Nicholas Piggin a écrit :
> Christophe Leroy's on April 6, 2020 3:44 am:
>> When r3 is not modified, reload it from regs->orig_r3 to free
>> volatile registers. This avoids a stack frame for the likely part
>> of syscall_call_exception()
>>
>> Before : 353 cycles on null_syscall
>> After  : 347 cycles on null_syscall
>>

[...]

>>
>> Signed-off-by: Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@....fr>
>> ---
>>   arch/powerpc/kernel/syscall.c | 2 ++
>>   1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/powerpc/kernel/syscall.c b/arch/powerpc/kernel/syscall.c
>> index 69d75fc4a5eb..630c423e089a 100644
>> --- a/arch/powerpc/kernel/syscall.c
>> +++ b/arch/powerpc/kernel/syscall.c
>> @@ -91,6 +91,8 @@ notrace long system_call_exception(long r3, long r4, long r5,
>>   
>>   	} else if (unlikely(r0 >= NR_syscalls)) {
>>   		return -ENOSYS;
>> +	} else {
>> +		r3 = regs->orig_gpr3;
>>   	}
> 
> So this just gives enough volatiles to avoid spilling to stack? I wonder
> about other various options here if they would cause a spill anyway.
> 
> Interesting optimisation, it would definitely need a comment. Would be
> nice if we had a way to tell the compiler that a local can be reloaded
> from a particular address.

Ok, comment added.

Christophe