Linux Hardening
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Sven Schnelle <svens@linux.ibm.com>
To: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
Cc: Heiko Carstens <hca@linux.ibm.com>,
	Alexander Gordeev <agordeev@linux.ibm.com>,
	linux-hardening@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: s390/defconfigs: set CONFIG_INIT_STACK_NONE=y
Date: Tue, 30 May 2023 08:44:13 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <yt9dy1l6mi82.fsf@linux.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <202305260922.F98F90290@keescook> (Kees Cook's message of "Fri, 26 May 2023 09:37:16 -0700")

Hi Kees,

Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org> writes:

> On Fri, May 26, 2023 at 03:42:56PM +0200, Heiko Carstens wrote:
>> Hi Kees,
>> 
>> > I had this[1] patch pointed out to me, but I couldn't find any discussion
>> > about it on public lists. Can you give me some background on this? There
>> > haven't been any general workloads identified where this has been
>> > a problem, so I'm curious why this was seen as globally an issue on
>> > s390. The expectation was to use __uninitialized on any variables where
>> > this was noticed as a performance issue, and where the memory safety of
>> > the variable could be proven. Turning it off by default seems like
>> > rather too much, but perhaps there is something unique to s390 I don't
>> > know about. :)
>> 
>> This was the result of some micro benchmarks being reported "too slow".
>> Actually our syscall entry/exit path got naturally slower since we switched
>> to generic entry; now we are trying to improve things a bit again.
>> 
>> There is also this RFC from Sven, which tries to inline some of the
>> generic system call functions, in order to avoid function calls:
>> https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20230516133810.171487-1-svens@linux.ibm.com/
>> 
>> I stumbled upon CONFIG_INIT_STACK_NONE only by accident when wondering why
>> the compiler would generate quite some instructions which aren't necessary,
>> just to zero variables. For the getpid() system call this makes a runtime
>> difference of ~3%, which is quite a bit.
>
> Hm, that does seem high. It implies there are large variable that are
> being passed by reference, perhaps in the syscall path? I had similar
> problems a while back on x86 but due to stack-protector seeing the
> register arrays and thinking they needed protection. I had to explicitly
> turn that off for the entry code, since they're provably safe. :)

From looking at our s390 specific entry code i don't see big arrays on
the stack, but let me do some profiling. Maybe i missed something.

Regards,
Sven

      reply	other threads:[~2023-05-30  6:44 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2023-05-25 18:40 s390/defconfigs: set CONFIG_INIT_STACK_NONE=y Kees Cook
2023-05-26 13:42 ` Heiko Carstens
2023-05-26 16:37   ` Kees Cook
2023-05-30  6:44     ` Sven Schnelle [this message]

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=yt9dy1l6mi82.fsf@linux.ibm.com \
    --to=svens@linux.ibm.com \
    --cc=agordeev@linux.ibm.com \
    --cc=hca@linux.ibm.com \
    --cc=keescook@chromium.org \
    --cc=linux-hardening@vger.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