linux-kernel - Re: [GIT PULL] Ceph updates for 5.20-rc1

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:   Sun, 14 Aug 2022 20:08:29 +0100
From:   Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
To:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:     Nathan Chancellor <nathan@...nel.org>,
        Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>,
        Jeff Layton <jlayton@...nel.org>,
        Ilya Dryomov <idryomov@...il.com>, ceph-devel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
        clang-built-linux <llvm@...ts.linux.dev>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] Ceph updates for 5.20-rc1

On Thu, Aug 11, 2022 at 08:58:54PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 11, 2022 at 3:43 PM Linus Torvalds
> <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
> >
> > Oh, sadly, clang does much worse here.
> >
> > Gcc ends up being able to not have a stack frame at all for
> > __d_lookup_rcu() once that DCACHE_OP_COMPARE case has been moved out.
> > The gcc code really looks very nice.
> >
> > Clang, not so much, and it still has spills and reloads.
> 
> I ended up looking at the clang code generation more than I probably
> should have, because I found it so odd.
> 
> Our code is literally written to not need that many values, and it
> should be easy to keep everything in registers.
> 
> It turns out that clang is trying much too hard to be clever in
> dentry_string_cmp(). The code is literally written so that we keep the
> count of remaining characters in 'tcount', and then at the end we can
> generate a 'mask' from that to ignore the parts of the pathname that
> are beyond the size.

[snip]

There's a cheap way to reduce the register pressure:
                seq = raw_seqcount_begin(&dentry->d_seq);
		if (dentry->d_parent != parent)
			continue;
		if (d_unhashed(dentry))
			continue;
		if (dentry->d_name.hash_len != hashlen)
			continue;
		if (dentry_cmp(dentry, str, hashlen_len(hashlen)) != 0)
			continue;  
		*seqp = seq;
could move the last store to before dentry_cmp().  Sure, we might get
some extra stores out of that.  Into a hot cacheline, and if we really
hit many of those extra stores, we already have a problem - a lot of
collisions both in ->d_parent and ->d_name.hash_len.  If that happens,
the cost of those extra stores is going to be trivial noise.

>From correctness POV that should be fine; callers of __d_lookup_rcu()
getting NULL either entirely ignore *seqp (d_alloc_parallel()) or
proceed to wipe it out (lookup_fast(), by calling try_to_unlazy()).

Comments?