linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] x86: add back the alignment of the destination to 8 bytes in copy_user

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]

Message-ID: <CAJmZWFHV+HM5V7mVpE5XEyrgM7jaJ8msZssOb2JdmqSrKKyMhg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2025 10:18:12 -0300
From: Herton Krzesinski <hkrzesin@...hat.com>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>, x86@...nel.org, tglx@...utronix.de, 
	mingo@...hat.com, bp@...en8.de, dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com, hpa@...or.com, 
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, olichtne@...hat.com, atomasov@...hat.com, 
	aokuliar@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86: add back the alignment of the destination to 8 bytes
 in copy_user_generic()

On Sun, Mar 16, 2025 at 8:10 AM Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org> wrote:
>
>
> * Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> > > It does look good in my testing here, I built same kernel I was
> > > using for testing the original patch (based on 6.14-rc6), this is
> > > one of the results I got in one of the runs testing on the same
> > > machine:
> > >
> > >              CPU      RATE          SYS          TIME     sender-receiver
> > > Server bind   19: 20.8Gbits/sec 14.832313000 20.863476111 75.4%-89.2%
> > > Server bind   21: 18.0Gbits/sec 18.705221000 23.996913032 80.8%-89.7%
> > > Server bind   23: 20.1Gbits/sec 15.331761000 21.536657212 75.0%-89.7%
> > > Server bind none: 24.1Gbits/sec 14.164226000 18.043132731 82.3%-87.1%
> > >
> > > There are still some variations between runs, which is expected as
> > > was the same when I tested my patch or in the not aligned case, but
> > > it's consistently better/higher than the no align case. Looks
> > > really it's sufficient to align for the higher than or equal 64
> > > bytes copy case.
> >
> > Mind sending a v2 patch with a changelog and these benchmark numbers
> > added in, and perhaps a Co-developed-by tag with Linus or so?
>
> BTW., if you have a test system available, it would be nice to test a
> server CPU in the Intel spectrum as well. (For completeness mostly, I'd
> not expect there to be as much alignment sensitivity.)
>
> The CPU you tested, AMD Epyc 7742 was launched ~6 years ago so it's
> still within the window of microarchitectures we care about. An Intel
> test would be nice from a similar timeframe as well. Older is probably
> better in this case, but not too old. :-)
>
> ( Note that the Intel test is not required to apply the fix IMO - we
>   did change alignment patterns ~2 years ago in a5624566431d which
>   regressed. )

Yes I'll work here to send a v2 and try to test on an Intel system, and compare.

>
> Thanks,
>
>         Ingo
>