linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 03/13] sh: remove unaligned access for sh4a

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]

Date:   Sat, 15 May 2021 17:36:53 +0200
From:   John Paul Adrian Glaubitz <glaubitz@...sik.fu-berlin.de>
To:     Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...nel.org>
Cc:     linux-arch <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Vineet Gupta <vgupta@...opsys.com>,
        Yoshinori Sato <ysato@...rs.sourceforge.jp>,
        Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org>,
        Linux-sh list <linux-sh@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 03/13] sh: remove unaligned access for sh4a

Hi Arnd!

On 5/14/21 2:22 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>> My Renesas SH4-Boards actually run an sh4a-Kernel, not an sh4-Kernel:
>>
>> root@...pitz:~> uname -a
>> Linux tirpitz 5.11.0-rc4-00012-g10c03c5bf422 #161 PREEMPT Mon Jan 18 21:10:17 CET 2021 sh4a GNU/Linux
>> root@...pitz:~>
>>
>> So, if this change reduces performance on sh4a, I would rather not merge it.
> 
> It only makes a difference in very specific scenarios in which unaligned
> accesses are done in a fast path, e.g. when forwarding network packet
> at a high rate on a big-endian kernel (little-endian kernels wouldn't run into
> this on IP headers). If you have a use case for this machine on which the
> you can show a performance regression, I can add a patch on top to put
> the optimized sh4a get_unaligned_le32() back. Dropping this patch
> altogether would make the series much more complex because most of
> the associated code gets removed in the end.

Hmm, okay. But why does code which sits below arch/sh have to be removed anyway?

I don't fully understand why it poses any maintenance burden/

> As I mentioned, supporting "movua" in the compiler likely has a much
> larger impact on performance, as it would also help in user space, and
> it should improve the networking case on little-endian kernels by replacing
> the four separate byte loads/shift pairs with a movua plus a byteswap.

The problem is that - at least in Debian - we use the sh4 baseline while the kernel
supports both sh4 and sh4a, so we can't use any of these instructions in userland at
the moment.

Adrian

-- 
 .''`.  John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
: :' :  Debian Developer - glaubitz@...ian.org
`. `'   Freie Universitaet Berlin - glaubitz@...sik.fu-berlin.de
  `-    GPG: 62FF 8A75 84E0 2956 9546  0006 7426 3B37 F5B5 F913