From: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
To: KP Singh <kpsingh@kernel.org>
Cc: linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org, bpf@vger.kernel.org,
paul@paul-moore.com, casey@schaufler-ca.com, song@kernel.org,
daniel@iogearbox.net, ast@kernel.org, renauld@google.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 0/5] Reduce overhead of LSMs with static calls
Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2023 08:51:51 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <202309220851.620EFFCC7C@keescook> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20230922145505.4044003-1-kpsingh@kernel.org>
On Fri, Sep 22, 2023 at 04:55:00PM +0200, KP Singh wrote:
> # Performance improvement
>
> With this patch-set some syscalls with lots of LSM hooks in their path
> benefitted at an average of ~3% and I/O and Pipe based system calls benefitting
> the most.
>
> Here are the results of the relevant Unixbench system benchmarks with BPF LSM
> and SELinux enabled with default policies enabled with and without these
> patches.
>
> Benchmark Delta(%): (+ is better)
> ===============================================================================
> Execl Throughput +1.9356
> File Write 1024 bufsize 2000 maxblocks +6.5953
> Pipe Throughput +9.5499
> Pipe-based Context Switching +3.0209
> Process Creation +2.3246
> Shell Scripts (1 concurrent) +1.4975
> System Call Overhead +2.7815
> System Benchmarks Index Score (Partial Only): +3.4859
>
> In the best case, some syscalls like eventfd_create benefitted to about ~10%.
> The full analysis can be viewed at https://kpsingh.ch/lsm-perf
Ship it! ;)
Thanks for continuing to work on this; this is a classic case for
static_call.
-Kees
--
Kees Cook
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-09-22 15:51 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 20+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-09-22 14:55 [PATCH v4 0/5] Reduce overhead of LSMs with static calls KP Singh
2023-09-22 14:55 ` [PATCH v4 1/5] kernel: Add helper macros for loop unrolling KP Singh
2023-09-22 14:55 ` [PATCH v4 2/5] security: Count the LSMs enabled at compile time KP Singh
2023-09-22 15:50 ` Kees Cook
2023-09-22 16:07 ` KP Singh
2023-09-27 22:37 ` KP Singh
2023-09-22 14:55 ` [PATCH v4 3/5] security: Replace indirect LSM hook calls with static calls KP Singh
2023-09-23 14:52 ` kernel test robot
2023-09-27 5:26 ` kernel test robot
2023-09-22 14:55 ` [PATCH v4 4/5] bpf: Only enable BPF LSM hooks when an LSM program is attached KP Singh
2023-09-22 14:55 ` [PATCH v4 5/5] security: Add CONFIG_SECURITY_HOOK_LIKELY KP Singh
2023-09-22 15:50 ` Kees Cook
2023-09-22 15:51 ` Kees Cook [this message]
2023-09-22 18:42 ` [PATCH v4 0/5] Reduce overhead of LSMs with static calls Mateusz Guzik
2023-09-23 16:16 ` KP Singh
2023-09-23 17:13 ` Mateusz Guzik
2023-09-23 17:15 ` Mateusz Guzik
2023-09-24 2:46 ` Kees Cook
2023-09-25 20:08 ` Mateusz Guzik
2023-09-25 22:02 ` 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=202309220851.620EFFCC7C@keescook \
--to=keescook@chromium.org \
--cc=ast@kernel.org \
--cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=casey@schaufler-ca.com \
--cc=daniel@iogearbox.net \
--cc=kpsingh@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=paul@paul-moore.com \
--cc=renauld@google.com \
--cc=song@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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).