linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
To: Josh Triplett <josh@joshtriplett.org>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
	Eric Biederman <ebiederm@xmission.com>,
	Alexander Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
	linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] fs/exec.c: Add fast path for ENOENT on PATH search before allocating mm
Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2022 13:02:51 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <202209191256.893576D4@keescook> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <YyUZ0NHfFF+eVe24@localhost>

On Sat, Sep 17, 2022 at 01:50:24AM +0100, Josh Triplett wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 16, 2022 at 05:11:18PM -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
> > I don't like the idea of penalizing the _succeeding_ case, though, which
> > happens if we do the path walk twice. So, I went and refactoring the setup
> > order, moving the do_open_execat() up into alloc_bprm() instead of where
> > it was in bprm_exec(). The result makes it so it is, as you observed,
> > before the mm creation and generally expensive argument copying. The
> > difference to your patch seems to only be the allocation of the file
> > table entry, but avoids the double lookup, so I'm hoping the result is
> > actually even faster.
> 
> Thanks for giving this a try; I'd wondered how feasible it would be to
> just do one lookup.
> 
> However, on the same test system with the same test setup, with your
> refactor it seems to go slower:
> fork/execvpe: 38087ns
> fork/execve:  33758ns
> 
> For comparison, the previous numbers (which I re-confirmed):
> 
> Without fast-path:
> fork/execvpe: 49876ns
> fork/execve:  32773ns
> 
> With my original separate-lookup fast-path:
> fork/execvpe: 36890ns
> fork/execve:  31551ns

Hmm, this shows as slower in the *normal* case, which I find rather
surprising -- it's the same work, just reordered.

Can you post a URL to your tests? I'd like to reproduce this and maybe
throw perf at it as well.

> I tried several runs of each, and I seem to get reasonably consistent
> results.
> 
> My test program just creates a pipe once, then loops on
> clock_gettime/fork/execvpe/read, with the spawned child process doing
> clock_gettime/write/exit (in asm to minimize overhead). The test PATH is
> PATH=/usr/local/bin:/usr/local/sbin:/usr/bin:/usr/sbin:/bin:/sbin:. with
> the test program in the current directory.

I'm also curious about less synthetic testing. It'd be nice to see real
workloads with these changes, etc.

-- 
Kees Cook

  reply	other threads:[~2022-09-19 20:02 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 23+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2022-09-16 13:41 [PATCH] fs/exec.c: Add fast path for ENOENT on PATH search before allocating mm Josh Triplett
2022-09-16 14:38 ` Kees Cook
2022-09-16 20:13   ` Josh Triplett
2022-09-17  0:11     ` Kees Cook
2022-09-17  0:50       ` Josh Triplett
2022-09-19 20:02         ` Kees Cook [this message]
2022-10-01 16:01           ` Josh Triplett
2022-09-19 14:34       ` Peter Zijlstra
2022-09-22  7:27 ` [fs/exec.c] 0a276ae2d2: BUG:workqueue_lockup-pool kernel test robot
2023-11-07 20:30 ` [PATCH] fs/exec.c: Add fast path for ENOENT on PATH search before allocating mm Kees Cook
2023-11-07 20:51   ` Mateusz Guzik
2023-11-07 21:23     ` Mateusz Guzik
2023-11-07 22:50       ` Kees Cook
2023-11-07 23:08         ` Mateusz Guzik
2023-11-07 23:39           ` Kees Cook
2023-11-08  0:03             ` Mateusz Guzik
2023-11-08 19:25               ` Kees Cook
2023-11-08 19:31               ` Kees Cook
2023-11-08 19:35                 ` Mateusz Guzik
2023-11-09  0:17                   ` Eric W. Biederman
2023-11-09 12:21                     ` Mateusz Guzik
2023-11-10  5:26                       ` Eric W. Biederman
2023-11-07 20:37 ` 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=202209191256.893576D4@keescook \
    --to=keescook@chromium.org \
    --cc=ebiederm@xmission.com \
    --cc=josh@joshtriplett.org \
    --cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
    --cc=peterz@infradead.org \
    --cc=viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk \
    /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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).