linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 0/7] arm64 / sched/preempt: support PREEMPT

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, 17 Feb 2022 14:52:11 +0100
From:   Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org>
To:     Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>
Cc:     linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, ardb@...nel.org,
        bp@...en8.de, catalin.marinas@....com, dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com,
        james.morse@....com, joey.gouly@....com, juri.lelli@...hat.com,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, luto@...nel.org, mingo@...hat.com,
        peterz@...radead.org, tglx@...utronix.de,
        valentin.schneider@....com, will@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 0/7] arm64 / sched/preempt: support PREEMPT_DYNAMIC
 with static keys

On Mon, Feb 14, 2022 at 04:52:09PM +0000, Mark Rutland wrote:
> This series enables PREEMPT_DYNAMIC on arm64. To do so, it adds a new
> mechanism allowing the preemption functions to be enabled/disabled using
> static keys rather than static calls, with architectures selecting
> whether they use static calls or static keys.
> 
> With non-inline static calls, each function call results in a call to
> the (out-of-line) trampoline which either tail-calls its associated
> callee or performs an early return.
> 
> The key idea is that where we're only enabling/disabling a single
> callee, we can inline this trampoline into the start of the callee,
> using a static key to decide whether to return early, and leaving the
> remaining codegen to the compiler. The overhead should be similar to
> (and likely lower than) using a static call trampoline. Since most
> codegen is up to the compiler, we sidestep a number of implementation
> pain-points (e.g. things like CFI should "just work" as well as they do
> for any other functions).
> 
> The bulk of the diffstat for kernel/sched/core.c is shuffling the
> PREEMPT_DYNAMIC code later in the file, and the actual additions are
> fairly trivial.
> 
> I've given this very light build+boot testing so far.

Acked-by: Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org>

Thanks!