linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] lib/string: Bring optimized memcmp from glibc

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:   Thu, 22 Jul 2021 11:28:56 +0300
From:   Nikolay Borisov <nborisov@...e.com>
To:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:     Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>,
        linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] lib/string: Bring optimized memcmp from glibc



On 21.07.21 г. 21:45, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 21, 2021 at 11:17 AM Nikolay Borisov <nborisov@...e.com> wrote:
>>
>> I find it somewhat arbitrary that we choose to align the 2nd pointer and
>> not the first.
> 
> Yeah, that's a bit odd, but I don't think it matters.
> 
> The hope is obviously that they are mutually aligned, and in that case
> it doesn't matter which one you aim to align.
> 
>> So you are saying that the current memcmp could indeed use improvement
>> but you don't want it to be based on the glibc's code due to the ugly
>> misalignment handling?
> 
> Yeah. I suspect that this (very simple) patch gives you the same
> performance improvement that the glibc code does.

You suspect correctly, perf profile:

30.44%    -29.38%  [kernel.vmlinux]         [k] memcmp

This is only on x86-64 as I don't have other arch handy. But this one is
definitely good.