From: Ryan Roberts <ryan.roberts@arm.com>
To: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
Huacai Chen <chenhuacai@kernel.org>,
Madhavan Srinivasan <maddy@linux.ibm.com>,
Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>,
Paul Walmsley <pjw@kernel.org>,
Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@dabbelt.com>,
Albert Ou <aou@eecs.berkeley.edu>,
Heiko Carstens <hca@linux.ibm.com>,
Vasily Gorbik <gor@linux.ibm.com>,
Alexander Gordeev <agordeev@linux.ibm.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>,
Kees Cook <kees@kernel.org>,
"Gustavo A. R. Silva" <gustavoars@kernel.org>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
"Jason A. Donenfeld" <Jason@zx2c4.com>,
Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@kernel.org>,
Jeremy Linton <jeremy.linton@arm.com>,
David Laight <david.laight.linux@gmail.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, loongarch@lists.linux.dev,
linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org,
linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, linux-hardening@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 0/2] Fix bugs and performance of kstack offset randomisation
Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2026 08:32:04 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <7687ded7-ecb1-45fe-bfa6-37d1a04355c8@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260303150840.3789438-1-ryan.roberts@arm.com>
Hi Kees,
I'm keen to get some testing in linux-next and hopefully get this upstream for
v7.1 as we previously discussed. Are you willing/able to take this via your tree?
Thanks,
Ryan
On 03/03/2026 15:08, Ryan Roberts wrote:
> [Kees; I'm hoping this is now good-to-go via your hardening tree? It would be
> good to get some linux-next testing.]
>
> Hi All,
>
> As I reported at [1], kstack offset randomisation suffers from a couple of bugs
> and, on arm64 at least, the performance is poor. This series attempts to fix
> both; patch 1 provides back-portable fixes for the functional bugs. Patch 2
> proposes a performance improvement approach.
>
> I've looked at a few different options but ultimately decided that Jeremy's
> original prng approach is the fastest. I made the argument that this approach is
> secure "enough" in the RFC [2] and the responses indicated agreement.
>
> More details in the commit logs.
>
>
> Performance
> ===========
>
> Mean and tail performance of 3 "small" syscalls was measured. syscall was made
> 10 million times and each individually measured and binned. These results have
> low noise so I'm confident that they are trustworthy.
>
> 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.
>
> **NOTE**: The below results were generated using the RFC patches but there is no
> meaningful change, so the numbers are still valid. I've also rerun the tests
> with this version on top of v7.0-rc2 on arm64 and confirmed simialr results.
>
> arm64 (AWS Graviton3):
> +-----------------+--------------+-------------+---------------+
> | Benchmark | Result Class | v6.18-rc5 | per-cpu-prng |
> | | | rndstack-on | |
> | | | | |
> +=================+==============+=============+===============+
> | syscall/getpid | mean (ns) | (R) 15.62% | (R) 3.43% |
> | | p99 (ns) | (R) 155.01% | (R) 3.20% |
> | | p99.9 (ns) | (R) 156.71% | (R) 2.93% |
> +-----------------+--------------+-------------+---------------+
> | syscall/getppid | mean (ns) | (R) 14.09% | (R) 2.12% |
> | | p99 (ns) | (R) 152.81% | 1.55% |
> | | p99.9 (ns) | (R) 153.67% | 1.77% |
> +-----------------+--------------+-------------+---------------+
> | syscall/invalid | mean (ns) | (R) 13.89% | (R) 3.32% |
> | | p99 (ns) | (R) 165.82% | (R) 3.51% |
> | | p99.9 (ns) | (R) 168.83% | (R) 3.77% |
> +-----------------+--------------+-------------+---------------+
>
> Because arm64 was previously using get_random_u16(), it was expensive when it
> didn't have any buffered bits and had to call into the crng. That's what caused
> the enormous tail latency.
>
>
> x86 (AWS Sapphire Rapids):
> +-----------------+--------------+-------------+---------------+
> | Benchmark | Result Class | v6.18-rc5 | per-cpu-prng |
> | | | rndstack-on | |
> | | | | |
> +=================+==============+=============+===============+
> | syscall/getpid | mean (ns) | (R) 13.32% | (R) 4.60% |
> | | p99 (ns) | (R) 13.38% | (R) 18.08% |
> | | p99.9 (ns) | 16.26% | (R) 19.38% |
> +-----------------+--------------+-------------+---------------+
> | syscall/getppid | mean (ns) | (R) 11.96% | (R) 5.26% |
> | | p99 (ns) | (R) 11.83% | (R) 8.35% |
> | | p99.9 (ns) | (R) 11.42% | (R) 22.37% |
> +-----------------+--------------+-------------+---------------+
> | syscall/invalid | mean (ns) | (R) 10.58% | (R) 2.91% |
> | | p99 (ns) | (R) 10.51% | (R) 4.36% |
> | | p99.9 (ns) | (R) 10.35% | (R) 21.97% |
> +-----------------+--------------+-------------+---------------+
>
> I was surprised to see that the baseline cost on x86 is 10-12% since it is just
> using rdtsc. But as I say, I believe the results are accurate.
>
>
> Changes since v4 [5]
> ====================
>
> - Moved add_random_kstack_offset() later in syscall entry code for powerpc, s390
> and x86. On these platforms it was previously within noinstr sections but for
> some exotic Kconfigs, [get|put]_cpu_var() was calling out to instrumentable
> code. (reported by kernel test robot)
> - Removed what was previously patch 2 (inline version of prandom_u32_state()).
> With the above change, there is no longer an issue with calling the
> out-of-line version.
>
> Changes since v3 [4]
> ====================
>
> - Patch 1: Fixed typo in commit log (per David L)
> - Patch 2: Reinstated prandom_u32_state() as out-of-line function, which
> forwards to inline version (per David L)
> - Patch 3: Added supplementary info about benefits of removing
> choose_random_kstack_offset() (per Mark R)
>
> Changes since v2 [3]
> ====================
>
> - Moved late_initcall() to initialize kstack_rnd_state out of
> randomize_kstack.h and into main.c. (issue noticed by kernel test robot)
>
> Changes since v1 (RFC) [2]
> ==========================
>
> - Introduced patch 2 to make prandom_u32_state() __always_inline (needed since
> its called from noinstr code)
> - In patch 3, prng is now per-cpu instead of per-task (per Ard)
>
>
> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/all/dd8c37bc-795f-4c7a-9086-69e584d8ab24@arm.com/
> [2] https://lore.kernel.org/all/20251127105958.2427758-1-ryan.roberts@arm.com/
> [3] https://lore.kernel.org/all/20251215163520.1144179-1-ryan.roberts@arm.com/
> [4] https://lore.kernel.org/all/20260102131156.3265118-1-ryan.roberts@arm.com/
> [5] https://lore.kernel.org/all/20260119130122.1283821-1-ryan.roberts@arm.com
>
> Thanks,
> Ryan
>
>
> Ryan Roberts (2):
> randomize_kstack: Maintain kstack_offset per task
> randomize_kstack: Unify random source across arches
>
> arch/Kconfig | 5 ++-
> arch/arm64/kernel/syscall.c | 11 ------
> arch/loongarch/kernel/syscall.c | 11 ------
> arch/powerpc/kernel/syscall.c | 16 ++-------
> arch/riscv/kernel/traps.c | 12 -------
> arch/s390/include/asm/entry-common.h | 8 -----
> arch/s390/kernel/syscall.c | 2 +-
> arch/x86/entry/syscall_32.c | 4 +--
> arch/x86/entry/syscall_64.c | 2 +-
> arch/x86/include/asm/entry-common.h | 12 -------
> include/linux/randomize_kstack.h | 54 +++++++++++-----------------
> init/main.c | 9 ++++-
> kernel/fork.c | 1 +
> 13 files changed, 37 insertions(+), 110 deletions(-)
>
> --
> 2.43.0
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-03-11 8:32 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-03-03 15:08 [PATCH v5 0/2] Fix bugs and performance of kstack offset randomisation Ryan Roberts
2026-03-03 15:08 ` [PATCH v5 1/2] randomize_kstack: Maintain kstack_offset per task Ryan Roberts
2026-03-03 15:08 ` [PATCH v5 2/2] randomize_kstack: Unify random source across arches Ryan Roberts
2026-03-11 8:32 ` Ryan Roberts [this message]
2026-03-25 4:14 ` [PATCH v5 0/2] Fix bugs and performance of kstack offset randomisation Kees Cook
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=7687ded7-ecb1-45fe-bfa6-37d1a04355c8@arm.com \
--to=ryan.roberts@arm.com \
--cc=Jason@zx2c4.com \
--cc=agordeev@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=aou@eecs.berkeley.edu \
--cc=ardb@kernel.org \
--cc=arnd@arndb.de \
--cc=bp@alien8.de \
--cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
--cc=chenhuacai@kernel.org \
--cc=dave.hansen@linux.intel.com \
--cc=david.laight.linux@gmail.com \
--cc=gor@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=gustavoars@kernel.org \
--cc=hca@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=jeremy.linton@arm.com \
--cc=kees@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-hardening@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-s390@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org \
--cc=loongarch@lists.linux.dev \
--cc=maddy@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=mark.rutland@arm.com \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=mpe@ellerman.id.au \
--cc=palmer@dabbelt.com \
--cc=pjw@kernel.org \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=will@kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox