linux-kernel - Re: remove the last set_fs() in common code, and remove it for x86 and powerpc

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: <20200818180555.GA29185@lst.de>
Date:   Tue, 18 Aug 2020 20:05:55 +0200
From:   Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
To:     Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@...roup.eu>
Cc:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>, Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
        Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>, x86@...nel.org,
        linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
        linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org, Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: remove the last set_fs() in common code, and remove it for x86
 and powerpc

On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 07:46:22PM +0200, Christophe Leroy wrote:
> I gave it a go on my powerpc mpc832x. I tested it on top of my newest 
> series that reworks the 32 bits signal handlers (see 
> https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/linuxppc-dev/list/?series=196278) with 
> the microbenchmark test used is that series.
>
> With KUAP activated, on top of signal32 rework, performance is boosted as 
> system time for the microbenchmark goes from 1.73s down to 1.56s, that is 
> 10% quicker
>
> Surprisingly, with the kernel as is today without my signal's series, your 
> series degrades performance slightly (from 2.55s to 2.64s ie 3.5% slower).
>
>
> I also observe, in both cases, a degradation on
>
> 	dd if=/dev/zero of=/dev/null count=1M
>
> Without your series, it runs in 5.29 seconds.
> With your series, it runs in 5.82 seconds, that is 10% more time.

That's pretty strage, I wonder if some kernel text cache line
effects come into play here?

The kernel access side is only used in slow path code, so it should
not make a difference, and the uaccess code is simplified and should be
(marginally) faster.

Btw, was this with the __{get,put}_user_allowed cockup that you noticed
fixed?