linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1 0/6] seccomp: Implement constant action bitmaps

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: <CABqSeASMObs7HtwfM=ua9Tbx1mfHZaxCMWD6AP6-6hR4-Xcn=Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Sat, 26 Sep 2020 13:11:50 -0500
From:   YiFei Zhu <zhuyifei1999@...il.com>
To:     Rasmus Villemoes <linux@...musvillemoes.dk>
Cc:     Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        YiFei Zhu <yifeifz2@...inois.edu>,
        Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
        Giuseppe Scrivano <gscrivan@...hat.com>,
        Will Drewry <wad@...omium.org>, bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>,
        Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>,
        Linux API <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Containers <containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
        Tobin Feldman-Fitzthum <tobin@....com>,
        Hubertus Franke <frankeh@...ibm.com>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
        Valentin Rothberg <vrothber@...hat.com>,
        Dimitrios Skarlatos <dskarlat@...cmu.edu>,
        Jack Chen <jianyan2@...inois.edu>,
        Josep Torrellas <torrella@...inois.edu>,
        Tianyin Xu <tyxu@...inois.edu>,
        kernel list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 0/6] seccomp: Implement constant action bitmaps

On Fri, Sep 25, 2020 at 2:07 AM YiFei Zhu <zhuyifei1999@...il.com> wrote:
> I'll try to profile the latter later on my qemu-kvm, with a recent
> libsecomp with binary tree and docker's profile, probably both direct
> filter attaches and filter attaches with fork(). I'm guessing if I
> have fork() the cost of fork() will overshadow seccomp() though.

I'm surprised. That is not the case as far as I can tell.

I wrote a benchmark [1] that would fork() and in the child attach a
seccomp filter, look at the CLOCK_MONOTONIC difference, then add it to
a struct timespec shared with the parent. It checks the difference
with the timespec before prctl and before fork. CLOCK_MONOTONIC
instead of CLOCK_PROCESS_CPUTIME_ID because of fork.

I ran `./seccomp_emu_bench 100000` in my qemu-kvm and here are the results:
without emulator:
Benchmarking 100000 syscalls...
19799663603 (19.8s)
seecomp attach without fork: 197996 ns
33911173847 (33.9s)
seecomp attach with fork: 339111 ns

with emulator:
Benchmarking 100000 syscalls...
54428289147 (54.4s)
seecomp attach without fork: 544282 ns
69494235408 (69.5s)
seecomp attach with fork: 694942 ns

fork seems to take around 150us, seccomp attach takes around 200us,
and the filter emulation overhead is around 350us. I had no idea that
fork was this fast. If I wrote my benchmark badly please criticise.

Given that we are doubling the time to fork() + seccomp attach filter,
I think yeah running the emulator on the first instance of a syscall,
holding a lock, is a much better idea. If I naively divide 350us by
the number of syscall + arch pairs emulated the overhead is less than
1 us and that should be okay since it only happens for the first
invocation of the particular syscall.

[1] https://gist.github.com/zhuyifei1999/d7bee62bea14187e150fef59db8e30b1

YiFei Zhu