From: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Cc: Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net>,
Will Drewry <wad@chromium.org>, Shuah Khan <shuah@kernel.org>,
Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>,
Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@fb.com>, Song Liu <songliubraving@fb.com>,
Yonghong Song <yhs@fb.com>, Andrii Nakryiko <andriin@fb.com>,
John Fastabend <john.fastabend@gmail.com>,
linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org
Subject: [PATCH] selftests/seccomp: Expand benchmark to per-filter measurements
Date: Mon, 1 Jun 2020 12:48:58 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <202006011245.236AAF3D@keescook> (raw)
It's useful to see how much (at a minimum) each filter adds to the
syscall overhead. Add additional calculations.
Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
---
As part of the performance discussions, this is what I'm adding to the
seccomp selftest in for-next/seccomp to get more details.
https://lore.kernel.org/linux-security-module/202006011116.3F7109A@keescook/T/#md8a6fd608cfd1f3c70aaf9ccc4f09fcc33b5fc1b
This does not include the BPF-bypass mode, which I don't see a way to
do without creating major problems with seccomp. ;)
---
.../selftests/seccomp/seccomp_benchmark.c | 36 +++++++++++++++----
tools/testing/selftests/seccomp/seccomp_bpf.c | 2 --
2 files changed, 29 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/seccomp/seccomp_benchmark.c b/tools/testing/selftests/seccomp/seccomp_benchmark.c
index 5838c8697ec3..eca13fe1fba9 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/seccomp/seccomp_benchmark.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/seccomp/seccomp_benchmark.c
@@ -68,32 +68,54 @@ int main(int argc, char *argv[])
};
long ret;
unsigned long long samples;
- unsigned long long native, filtered;
+ unsigned long long native, filter1, filter2;
if (argc > 1)
samples = strtoull(argv[1], NULL, 0);
else
samples = calibrate();
+ printf("Current BPF sysctl settings:\n");
+ system("sysctl net.core.bpf_jit_enable");
+ system("sysctl net.core.bpf_jit_harden");
printf("Benchmarking %llu samples...\n", samples);
+ /* Native call */
native = timing(CLOCK_PROCESS_CPUTIME_ID, samples) / samples;
printf("getpid native: %llu ns\n", native);
ret = prctl(PR_SET_NO_NEW_PRIVS, 1, 0, 0, 0);
assert(ret == 0);
+ /* One filter */
ret = prctl(PR_SET_SECCOMP, SECCOMP_MODE_FILTER, &prog);
assert(ret == 0);
- filtered = timing(CLOCK_PROCESS_CPUTIME_ID, samples) / samples;
- printf("getpid RET_ALLOW: %llu ns\n", filtered);
+ filter1 = timing(CLOCK_PROCESS_CPUTIME_ID, samples) / samples;
+ printf("getpid RET_ALLOW 1 filter: %llu ns\n", filter1);
- printf("Estimated seccomp overhead per syscall: %llu ns\n",
- filtered - native);
+ if (filter1 == native)
+ printf("No overhead measured!? Try running again with more samples.\n");
- if (filtered == native)
- printf("Trying running again with more samples.\n");
+ /* Two filters */
+ ret = prctl(PR_SET_SECCOMP, SECCOMP_MODE_FILTER, &prog);
+ assert(ret == 0);
+
+ filter2 = timing(CLOCK_PROCESS_CPUTIME_ID, samples) / samples;
+ printf("getpid RET_ALLOW 2 filters: %llu ns\n", filter2);
+
+ /* Calculations */
+ printf("Estimated total seccomp overhead for 1 filter: %llu ns\n",
+ filter1 - native);
+
+ printf("Estimated total seccomp overhead for 2 filters: %llu ns\n",
+ filter2 - native);
+
+ printf("Estimated seccomp per-filter overhead: %llu ns\n",
+ filter2 - filter1);
+
+ printf("Estimated seccomp entry overhead: %llu ns\n",
+ filter1 - native - (filter2 - filter1));
return 0;
}
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/seccomp/seccomp_bpf.c b/tools/testing/selftests/seccomp/seccomp_bpf.c
index 4dae278cf77e..402ccb3a4e52 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/seccomp/seccomp_bpf.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/seccomp/seccomp_bpf.c
@@ -3824,7 +3824,6 @@ TEST(user_notification_filter_empty_threaded)
/*
* TODO:
- * - add microbenchmarks
* - expand NNP testing
* - better arch-specific TRACE and TRAP handlers.
* - endianness checking when appropriate
@@ -3832,7 +3831,6 @@ TEST(user_notification_filter_empty_threaded)
* - arch value testing (x86 modes especially)
* - verify that FILTER_FLAG_LOG filters generate log messages
* - verify that RET_LOG generates log messages
- * - ...
*/
TEST_HARNESS_MAIN
--
2.25.1
--
Kees Cook
reply other threads:[~2020-06-01 19:49 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: [no followups] expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed
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=202006011245.236AAF3D@keescook \
--to=keescook@chromium.org \
--cc=andriin@fb.com \
--cc=ast@kernel.org \
--cc=daniel@iogearbox.net \
--cc=john.fastabend@gmail.com \
--cc=kafai@fb.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=luto@amacapital.net \
--cc=shuah@kernel.org \
--cc=songliubraving@fb.com \
--cc=wad@chromium.org \
--cc=yhs@fb.com \
/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