[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87k22yjatf.fsf@concordia.ellerman.id.au>
Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 22:09:32 +1000
From: Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>, Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>, "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>, Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>, Eric Biggers <ebiggers3@...il.com>, Elena Reshetova <elena.reshetova@...el.com>, Hans Liljestrand <ishkamiel@...il.com>, Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>, Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>, "Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@...lyn.com>, arozansk@...hat.com, Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>, Manfred Spraul <manfred@...orfullife.com>, "axboe\@kernel.dk" <axboe@...nel.dk>, James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senpartnership.com>, "x86\@kernel.org" <x86@...nel.org>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, linux-arch <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>, "kernel-hardening\@lists.openwall.com" <kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 0/2] x86: Implement fast refcount overflow protection
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> writes:
> On Mon, Jul 24, 2017 at 04:38:06PM +1000, Michael Ellerman wrote:
>
>> What I'm not entirely clear on is what the best trade off is in terms of
>> overhead vs checks. The summary of behaviour between the fast and full
>> versions you promised Ingo will help there I think.
>
> That's something that's probably completely different for PPC than it is
> for x86.
Yeah definitely. I guess I see the x86 version as a lower bound on the
semantics we'd need to implement and still claim to implement the
refcount stuff.
> Both because your primitive is LL/SC and thus the saturation
> semantics we need a cmpxchg loop for are more natural in your case
Yay!
> anyway, and the fact that your LL/SC is horrendously slow in any case.
Boo :/
Just kidding. I suspect you're right that we can probably pack a
reasonable amount of tests in the body of the LL/SC and not notice.
> Also, I still haven't seen an actual benchmark where our cmpxchg loop
> actually regresses anything, just a lot of yelling about potential
> regressions :/
Heh yeah. Though I have looked at the code it generates on PPC and it's
not sleek, though I guess that's not a benchmark is it :)
cheers
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.
