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  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]
Date:   Sat, 13 Jun 2020 22:45:33 +0200
From:   Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
To:     afzal mohammed <afzal.mohd.ma@...il.com>
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()

On Sat, Jun 13, 2020 at 2:04 PM afzal mohammed <afzal.mohd.ma@...il.com> wrote:
> 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).

Right, this is apparently because tmpfs uses shmem_file_read_iter() to
copy the file pages one at a time. generic_file_buffered_read() seems
similar, to copying between an aligned kernel page and address in
user space that is not page aligned would be an important case to
optimize for.

> 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.

4% boot time increase sounds like a lot, especially if that is only for
copy_from_user/copy_to_user. In the end it really depends on how well
get_user()/put_user() and small copies can be optimized in the end.

> > 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.

This is going to be highly microarchitecture specific, so anything you test
on the Beaglebone's Cortex-A8 might not apply to A7/A15/A17 systems,
but if you want to test what the overhead is, you could try changing
/dev/zero (or a different chardev like it) to use a series of
put_user(0, u32uptr++) in place of whatever it has, and then replace the
'str' instruction with dummy writes to ttbr0 using the value it already
has, like:

      mcr     p15, 0, %0, c2, c0, 0  /* set_ttbr0() */
      isb  /* prevent speculative access to kernel table */
      str    %1, [%2],0 /* write 32 bit to user space */
      mcr     p15, 0, %0, c2, c0, 0  /* set_ttbr0() */
      isb  /* prevent speculative access to user table */

This is obviously going to be very slow compared to the simple store
there is today but maybe cheaper than the
CONFIG_ARM64_SW_TTBR0_PAN uaccess_en/disable()
on arm64 on a single get_user()/put_user().

It would be interesting to compare it to the overhead of a
get_user_page_fast() based implementation. From the numbers you
measured, it seems the beaglebone currently needs an extra ~6µs or
3µs per copy_to/from_user() call with your patch, depending on what
your benchmark was (MB/s for just reading or writing vs MB/s for
copying from one file to another through a user space buffer).

       Arnd

Powered by blists - more mailing lists