linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] x86/asm: Use asm_inline() instead of asm() in __untagged

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20250314133406.GEZ9QwTmnwjtX6PiJ6@fat_crate.local>
Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2025 14:34:06 +0100
From: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
To: Uros Bizjak <ubizjak@...il.com>
Cc: x86@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
	Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/asm: Use asm_inline() instead of asm() in
 __untagged_addr()

On Fri, Mar 14, 2025 at 02:22:45PM +0100, Uros Bizjak wrote:
> Do you see the removed functions?

I'd actually wanna see real benchmarks which show any performance improvement.
Like this one here. But this one which shows only within-the-noise:

https://lore.kernel.org/all/20250314132306.GDZ9QtukcVVtDmW1V1@fat_crate.local

But hey, apparently it doesn't cause any slowdowns either and apparently Ingo
thinks all that churn makes sense so whatever...

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette