linux-kernel - Re: [x86/signal] 3aac3ebea0: will-it-scale.per_thread

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Thu, 09 Dec 2021 09:13:18 +0100
From:   Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To:     Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
        "Bae, Chang Seok" <chang.seok.bae@...el.com>
Cc:     "Sang, Oliver" <oliver.sang@...el.com>,
        Borislav Petkov <bp@...e.de>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "lkp@...ts.01.org" <lkp@...ts.01.org>, lkp <lkp@...el.com>,
        "Huang, Ying" <ying.huang@...el.com>,
        "Tang, Feng" <feng.tang@...el.com>,
        "zhengjun.xing@...ux.intel.com" <zhengjun.xing@...ux.intel.com>,
        "Yin, Fengwei" <fengwei.yin@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [x86/signal] 3aac3ebea0: will-it-scale.per_thread_ops -11.9%
 regression

On Wed, Dec 08 2021 at 10:20, Dave Hansen wrote:
> On 12/8/21 10:00 AM, Bae, Chang Seok wrote:
>> diff --git a/kernel/signal.c b/kernel/signal.c
>> index a629b11bf3e0..8194d2f38bf1 100644
>> --- a/kernel/signal.c
>> +++ b/kernel/signal.c
>> @@ -4224,6 +4224,11 @@ int restore_altstack(const stack_t __user *uss)
>>         stack_t new;
>>         if (copy_from_user(&new, uss, sizeof(stack_t)))
>>                 return -EFAULT;
>> +       if (current->sas_ss_sp == (unsigned long) new.ss_sp &&
>> +           current->sas_ss_size == new.ss_size &&
>> +           current->sas_ss_flags == new.ss_flags)
>> +               return 0;
>> +
>>         (void)do_sigaltstack(&new, NULL, current_user_stack_pointer(),
>>                              MINSIGSTKSZ);
>>         /* squash all but EFAULT for now */
>
> This seems like a generally good optimization that could go in
> do_sigaltstack() itself, no?

Yes, right before the sigaltstack_lock() invocation.

Thanks,

        tglx