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: <e3781661-2e13-4f46-d892-181907a2e768@csgroup.eu>
Date:   Tue, 18 Aug 2020 20:23:12 +0200
From:   Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@...roup.eu>
To:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
Cc:     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



Le 18/08/2020 à 20:05, Christoph Hellwig a écrit :
> 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?
> 

Yes it is with the __get_user_size() replaced by __get_user_size_allowed().

Christophe