linux-kernel - Re: [RFC/RFT PATCH 0/6] Improve get_random

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: <e996fdd5-7113-4327-a884-336dd5f77c4d@arm.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Nov 2025 14:18:18 +0000
From: Ryan Roberts <ryan.roberts@....com>
To: Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@...nel.org>
Cc: Ard Biesheuvel <ardb+git@...gle.com>, linux-hardening@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
 Kees Cook <kees@...nel.org>, Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
 Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, Jeremy Linton <jeremy.linton@....com>,
 Catalin Marinas <Catalin.Marinas@....com>,
 Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>, "Jason A. Donenfeld" <Jason@...c4.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC/RFT PATCH 0/6] Improve get_random_u8() for use in randomize
 kstack

On 27/11/2025 12:28, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Nov 2025 at 13:12, Ryan Roberts <ryan.roberts@....com> wrote:
>>
>> On 27/11/2025 09:22, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
>>> From: Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@...nel.org>
>>>
>>> Ryan reports that get_random_u16() is dominant in the performance
>>> profiling of syscall entry when kstack randomization is enabled [0].
>>>
>>> This is the reason many architectures rely on a counter instead, and
>>> that, in turn, is the reason for the convoluted way the (pseudo-)entropy
>>> is gathered and recorded in a per-CPU variable.
>>>
>>> Let's try to make the get_random_uXX() fast path faster, and switch to
>>> get_random_u8() so that we'll hit the slow path 2x less often. Then,
>>> wire it up in the syscall entry path, replacing the per-CPU variable,
>>> making the logic at syscall exit redundant.
>>
>> I ran the same set of syscall benchmarks for this series as I've done for my
>> series.
>>
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> 
>> The baseline is v6.18-rc5 with stack randomization turned *off*. So I'm showing
>> performance cost of turning it on without any changes to the implementation,
>> then the reduced performance cost of turning it on with my changes applied, and
>> finally cost of turning it on with Ard's changes applied:
>>
>> arm64 (AWS Graviton3):
>> +-----------------+--------------+-------------+---------------+-----------------+
>> | Benchmark       | Result Class |   v6.18-rc5 | per-task-prng | fast-get-random |
>> |                 |              | rndstack-on |               |                 |
>> +=================+==============+=============+===============+=================+
>> | syscall/getpid  | mean (ns)    |  (R) 15.62% |     (R) 3.43% |      (R) 11.93% |
>> |                 | p99 (ns)     | (R) 155.01% |     (R) 3.20% |      (R) 11.00% |
>> |                 | p99.9 (ns)   | (R) 156.71% |     (R) 2.93% |      (R) 11.39% |
>> +-----------------+--------------+-------------+---------------+-----------------+
>> | syscall/getppid | mean (ns)    |  (R) 14.09% |     (R) 2.12% |      (R) 10.44% |
>> |                 | p99 (ns)     | (R) 152.81% |         1.55% |       (R) 9.94% |
>> |                 | p99.9 (ns)   | (R) 153.67% |         1.77% |       (R) 9.83% |
>> +-----------------+--------------+-------------+---------------+-----------------+
>> | syscall/invalid | mean (ns)    |  (R) 13.89% |     (R) 3.32% |      (R) 10.39% |
>> |                 | p99 (ns)     | (R) 165.82% |     (R) 3.51% |      (R) 10.72% |
>> |                 | p99.9 (ns)   | (R) 168.83% |     (R) 3.77% |      (R) 11.03% |
>> +-----------------+--------------+-------------+---------------+-----------------+
>>
> 
> What does the (R) mean?
> 
>> So this fixes the tail problem. I guess get_random_u8() only takes the slow path
>> every 768 calls, whereas get_random_u16() took it every 384 calls. I'm not sure
>> that fully explains it though.
>>
>> But it's still a 10% cost on average.
>>
>> Personally I think 10% syscall cost is too much to pay for 6 bits of stack
>> randomisation. 3% is better, but still higher than we would all prefer, I'm sure.
>>
> 
> Interesting!
> 
> So the only thing that get_random_u8() does that could explain the
> delta is calling into the scheduler on preempt_enable(), given that it
> does very little beyond that.
> 
> Would you mind repeating this experiment after changing the
> put_cpu_var() to preempt_enable_no_resched(), to test this theory?

This has no impact on performance.