[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAGXu5jLRierLAFabHusxL8X60XHJ=p3wAMUYm8CEpSTv8yb3SA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2016 14:12:37 -0700
From: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
To: David Windsor <dwindsor@...il.com>
Cc: "Reshetova, Elena" <elena.reshetova@...el.com>, Hans Liljestrand <ishkamiel@...il.com>,
"kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com" <kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com>
Subject: Re: HARDENED_ATOMIC benchmarks
On Mon, Oct 24, 2016 at 2:04 PM, David Windsor <dwindsor@...il.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 24, 2016 at 4:53 PM, Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org> wrote:
>> On Sat, Oct 22, 2016 at 3:13 PM, David Windsor <dwindsor@...il.com> wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> The following are the results of benchmarking HARDENED_ATOMIC. The
>>> benchmarks performed were dbench and a timed Linux kernel compile using the
>>> Phoronix test suite [1] on a Linux VirtualBox guest.
>>>
>>> dbench was chosen specifically to gauge the performance penalty involved in
>>> heavy usage of struct file->f_count, as this is one of the hottest users of
>>> atomic_t/atomic_long_t.
>>>
>>> A small performance degradation was noticeable with HARDENED_ATOMIC enabled.
>>> The numbers are such that I'm unsure if this was due to the feature itself
>>> or to random line noise. What follows is a summary of the benchmark
>>> results, then the results themselves.
>>>
>>> [1] http://www.phoronix-test-suite.com/
>>>
>>> HARDENED_ATOMIC Benchmarking Summary
>>> ===================================
>>>
>>> dbench
>>> ======
>>> CONFIG_HARDENED_ATOMIC not set: 109.79 MB/s
>>> CONFIG_HARDENED_ATOMIC set: 106.75 MB/s
>>> 2.8% slowdown
>>>
>>> Timed Linux kernel compile
>>> =====================
>>> CONFIG_HARDENED_ATOMIC not set: 504.12 seconds
>>> CONFIG_HARDENED_ATOMIC set: 504.81 seconds
>>> 0.01% slowdown
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> HARDENED_ATOMIC Benchmark Results
>>> ===============================
>>>
>>> dbench
>>> ======
>>> HARDENED_ATOMIC disabled:
>>> dbenchDbench 4.0:
>>> pts/dbench-1.0.0 [Client Count: 12]
>>> Test 1 of 1
>>> Estimated Trial Run Count: 3
>>> Estimated Time To Completion: 1 Hour, 25 Minutes
>>> Started Run 1 @ 08:48:01
>>> Started Run 2 @ 09:00:04
>>> Started Run 3 @ 09:12:07 [Std. Dev: 1.39%]
>>>
>>> Test Results:
>>> 109.613
>>> 108.351
>>> 111.393
>>>
>>> Average: 109.79 MB/s
>>>
>>>
>>> HARDENED_ATOMIC enabled:
>>> Dbench 4.0:
>>> pts/dbench-1.0.0 [Client Count: 12]
>>> Test 1 of 1
>>> Estimated Trial Run Count: 3
>>> Estimated Time To Completion: 1 Hour, 28 Minutes
>>> Started Run 1 @ 06:48:33
>>> Started Run 2 @ 07:00:37
>>> Started Run 3 @ 07:12:40 [Std. Dev: 12.66%]
>>> Started Run 4 @ 07:24:43 [Std. Dev: 10.94%]
>>> Started Run 5 @ 07:36:46 [Std. Dev: 9.98%]
>>> Started Run 6 @ 07:48:50 [Std. Dev: 9.30%]
>>>
>>> Test Results:
>>> 87.0504
>>> 106.451
>>> 111.377
>>> 110.239
>>> 112.226
>>> 113.152
>>>
>>> Average: 106.75 MB/s
>>
>> Variation here is as large as the measured difference, so yeah, this
>> looks like it's mostly in the noise.
>>
>>> Timed Linux Kernel Compile
>>> ======================
>>> HARDENED_ATOMIC disabled:
>>> Timed Linux Kernel Compilation 4.3:
>>> pts/build-linux-kernel-1.6.0
>>> Test 4 of 4
>>> Estimated Trial Run Count: 3
>>> Estimated Time To Completion: 55 Minutes
>>> Estimated Trial Run Count: 3
>>> Estimated Time To Completion: 55 Minutes
>>> Running Pre-Test Script @ 02:39:33
>>> Started Run 1 @ 02:40:06
>>> Running Interim Test Script @ 02:48:39
>>> Started Run 2 @ 02:48:45
>>> Running Interim Test Script @ 02:57:07
>>> Started Run 3 @ 02:57:14 [Std. Dev: 0.84%]
>>> Running Post-Test Script @ 03:05:35
>>>
>>> Test Results:
>>> 509.00912308693
>>> 501.88456201553
>>> 501.46281981468
>>>
>>> Average: 504.12 Seconds
>>>
>>>
>>> HARDENED_ATOMIC enabled:
>>> Timed Linux Kernel Compilation 4.3:
>>> pts/build-linux-kernel-1.6.0
>>> Test 4 of 4
>>> Estimated Trial Run Count: 3
>>> Estimated Time To Completion: 45 Minutes
>>> Running Pre-Test Script @ 05:26:55
>>> Started Run 1 @ 05:27:30
>>> Running Interim Test Script @ 05:36:01
>>> Started Run 2 @ 05:36:08
>>> Running Interim Test Script @ 05:44:32
>>> Started Run 3 @ 05:44:38 [Std. Dev: 0.36%]
>>> Running Post-Test Script @ 05:53:02
>>>
>>> Test Results:
>>> 506.84527802467
>>> 504.29637002945
>>> 503.30119299889
>>>
>>> Average: 504.81 Seconds
>>
>> These have much smaller std deviations.
>>
>> Thanks for the testing! The cover letter can likely get updated to
>> include the overview: no meaningfully measurable performance
>> difference. :)
>>
>
> Ok, that sounds good. Although, Jann Horn and I worked together to
> come up with a better benchmark that directly targets the
> file_get->atomic_add path, which is one of the hottest paths to be
> impacted by HARDENED_ATOMIC.
>
> I'm running those benchmarks now; they should be finished in a few hours.
Oh perfect! Yeah, I really like being able to see "general case" (as
already measured: no impact) and "worst case" (this test), since that
can really help people calibrate what the numbers mean to them.
Thanks!
-Kees
--
Kees Cook
Nexus Security
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
