linux-kernel - Re: [RFC 1/3] lib: copy_{from,to}_user using gup & kmap

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: <20200613120432.GA5319@afzalpc>
Date:   Sat, 13 Jun 2020 17:34:32 +0530
From:   afzal mohammed <afzal.mohd.ma@...il.com>
To:     Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Cc:     Russell King - ARM Linux admin <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
        Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        Nicolas Pitre <nico@...xnic.net>,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
        Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC 1/3] lib: copy_{from,to}_user using gup & kmap_atomic()

Hi,

On Fri, Jun 12, 2020 at 10:07:28PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:

> I think a lot
> of usercopy calls are only for a few bytes, though this is of course
> highly workload dependent and you might only care about the large
> ones.

Observation is that max. pages reaching copy_{from,to}_user() is 2,
observed maximum of n (number of bytes) being 1 page size. i think C
library cuts any size read, write to page size (if it exceeds) &
invokes the system call. Max. pages reaching 2, happens when 'n'
crosses page boundary, this has been observed w/ small size request
as well w/ ones of exact page size (but not page aligned).

Even w/ dd of various size >4K, never is the number of pages required
to be mapped going greater than 2 (even w/ 'dd' 'bs=1M')

i have a worry (don't know whether it is an unnecessary one): even
if we improve performance w/ large copy sizes, it might end up in a
sluggishness w.r.t user experience due to most (hence a high amount)
of user copy calls being few bytes & there the penalty being higher.
And benchmark would not be able to detect anything abnormal since
usercopy are being tested on large sizes.

Quickly comparing boot-time on Beagle Bone White, boot time increases
by only 4%, perhaps this worry is irrelevant, but just thought will
put it across.

> There is also still hope of optimizing small aligned copies like
> 
> set_ttbr0(user_ttbr);
> ldm();
> set_ttbr0(kernel_ttbr);
> stm();

Hmm, more needs to be done to be in a position to test it.

Regards
afzal