[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <679d163f-2927-ed56-71dc-976fcf5e213f@zytor.com>
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2017 13:49:17 -0700
From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To: Thomas Garnier <thgarnie@...gle.com>
Cc: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@...ibm.com>,
Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>,
David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>, Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
René Nyffenegger <mail@...enyffenegger.ch>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Kees Cook
<keescook@...omium.org>,
"Paul E . McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Ard Biesheuvel
<ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org>,
Nicolas Pitre <nicolas.pitre@...aro.org>,
Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>,
Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>,
Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@...il.com>,
Helge Deller <deller@....de>, Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
Stephen Smalley <sds@...ho.nsa.gov>,
Pavel Tikhomirov <ptikhomirov@...tuozzo.com>,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
Stanislav Kinsburskiy <skinsbursky@...tuozzo.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
Dmitry Safonov <dsafonov@...tuozzo.com>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>, Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>,
Brian Gerst <brgerst@...il.com>, Jan Beulich <JBeulich@...e.com>,
Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ibm.com>,
Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu@...el.com>, He Chen <he.chen@...ux.intel.com>,
Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
Vladimir Murzin <vladimir.murzin@....com>,
Will Deacon
<will.deacon@....com>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>, James Morse <james.morse@....com>,
"David A . Long" <dave.long@...aro.org>,
Pratyush Anand <panand@...hat.com>, Laura Abbott <labbott@...hat.com>,
Andre Przywara <andre.przywara@....com>,
Chris Metcalf <cmetcalf@...lanox.com>,
linux-s390 <linux-s390@...r.kernel.org>,
LKML
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux API <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>,
the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@...nel.org>,
"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
Kernel Hardening <kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/4] x86/syscalls: Specific usage of
verify_pre_usermode_state
On 03/22/17 13:41, Thomas Garnier wrote:
>>> with the change below for additional feedback.
>>
>> Can you specify what that means?
>
> If I set inline by default, the compiler chose not to inline it on
> x86. If I force inline the size impact was actually bigger (without
> the architecture specific code).
>
That's utterly bizarre. Something strange is going on there. I suspect
the right thing to do is to out-of-line the error case only, but even
that seems strange. It should be something like four instructions inline.
>>
>> On x86, where there is only one caller of this, it really seems like it
>> ought to reduce the overhead to almost zero (since it most likely is
>> hidden in the pipeline.)
>>
>> I would like to suggest defining it inline if
>> CONFIG_ARCH_NO_SYSCALL_VERIFY_PRE_USERMODE_STATE is set; I really don't
>> care about an architecture which doesn't have it.
>
> But if there is only one caller, does the compiler is not suppose to
> inline the function based on options?
If it is marked static in the same file, yes, but you have it in a
different file from what I can tell.
> The assembly will call it too, so I would need an inline and a
> non-inline based on the caller.
Where? I don't see that anywhere, at least for x86.
-hpa
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.
