From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.5 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED, DKIM_INVALID,DKIM_SIGNED,FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN,FREEMAIL_FROM, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS, URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 242A1C4346E for ; Fri, 25 Sep 2020 01:36:11 +0000 (UTC) Received: from hemlock.osuosl.org (smtp2.osuosl.org [140.211.166.133]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 78ECA2083B for ; Fri, 25 Sep 2020 01:36:10 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b="JRYOS6/E" DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 78ECA2083B Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=gmail.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=containers-bounces@lists.linux-foundation.org Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hemlock.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 11FE4871C4; Fri, 25 Sep 2020 01:36:10 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org Received: from hemlock.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id MLdIelGtj4Yx; Fri, 25 Sep 2020 01:36:09 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lists.linuxfoundation.org (lf-lists.osuosl.org [140.211.9.56]) by hemlock.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 967CE8709B; Fri, 25 Sep 2020 01:36:09 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lf-lists.osuosl.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 81CFEC0890; Fri, 25 Sep 2020 01:36:09 +0000 (UTC) Received: from whitealder.osuosl.org (smtp1.osuosl.org [140.211.166.138]) by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4B3D0C0859 for ; Fri, 25 Sep 2020 01:36:08 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by whitealder.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4010986C61 for ; Fri, 25 Sep 2020 01:36:08 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org Received: from whitealder.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id NUnt7C-uwxVn for ; Fri, 25 Sep 2020 01:36:07 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-pf1-f196.google.com (mail-pf1-f196.google.com [209.85.210.196]) by whitealder.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2176B86BDA for ; Fri, 25 Sep 2020 01:36:07 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-pf1-f196.google.com with SMTP id z19so1584419pfn.8 for ; Thu, 24 Sep 2020 18:36:07 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=fgmv1ZdL7UUXwEEal/l25It5GrSTWQVpHodie+cr1w0=; b=JRYOS6/EWijo06SB1EWdfUNPiLTpKE4BWfZ0U4z5NiWUiGwaLLEqBs82QOWSq7GHC/ Lg0nuso6br2icKGo48MjaGPbXt5XfW+FuOep9LZ2ZL0UgBjAiyXvLvw+nU+81bi+nlID UiABi7ZcXRSWMSOkl541UuJvrGPaFFf8TcNRndTcWBo71DcNu87UqP4PY0icMqLb/S4N vtzUMuvt3t3P8x6O73AmiMAueQDgU0z+uV7hj+1vegevWLFaqER5uz+8cjRUOqXWyv27 14y6BlTCkF2D9NOMS0AdWMvO3p//u2+Qf4Tcni0GdmPnH7KSeAVIUvMMT2acozLbmbiR lUAA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=fgmv1ZdL7UUXwEEal/l25It5GrSTWQVpHodie+cr1w0=; b=J6Dyc3oPXFdbcByZtsCphh//Cf/Hxs1llnMonkUZB5HMyRyzsBmMC5nyOm3zjX/1UC 4IJSupPvieg/4gwuTVwGC2BpnAAAzz1MiqNv3OxYEShlVP0VRj9FngtiFJZzpQ4iryGG gXwUqaDrGpXogphfuNDg0qlLQZQci0leH1EfLin0UBz/wsH2xARu1R2YB77RNCJB0UUm G9+EFktf/FjgZbUOsDJyoncGYtbr32MyRkPGCOvmYWz69Sq2VcrYuUiPQtTrqQNLhzC7 x5k18vyF5NMnztD7G2f7IG7nTMB1XToVx+ScVT0a9hfiChLSyDC9sso6f+r1vkizFyKe +J4g== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532n8HR9Eg99SRZHDQSWhctD8fYvs1IO41E9F/G0cc8TXw9VuxR2 LOmlUG9eYrbdTdBoUcUy0mTOWDWsUg+JxomqPkc= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxyv0KcwQtrdMtQkTLyrl57OgqJRSWjXZ4r4Z8vu+1JbH/U88tfk1cIxqTiWE1k97krRxR311A3MkeH2l3hX0c= X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:7445:b029:d1:dea3:a3ca with SMTP id e5-20020a1709027445b02900d1dea3a3camr1876986plt.19.1600997766672; Thu, 24 Sep 2020 18:36:06 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <202009241646.5739BE3@keescook> In-Reply-To: <202009241646.5739BE3@keescook> From: YiFei Zhu Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2020 20:35:55 -0500 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 seccomp 5/6] selftests/seccomp: Compare bitmap vs filter overhead To: Kees Cook Cc: Andrea Arcangeli , Giuseppe Scrivano , Valentin Rothberg , Jann Horn , YiFei Zhu , Linux Containers , Tobin Feldman-Fitzthum , kernel list , Andy Lutomirski , Hubertus Franke , Jack Chen , Dimitrios Skarlatos , Josep Torrellas , Will Drewry , bpf , Tianyin Xu X-BeenThere: containers@lists.linux-foundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Linux Containers List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: containers-bounces@lists.linux-foundation.org Sender: "Containers" On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 6:47 PM Kees Cook wrote: > BTW, did this benchmark tool's results match your expectations from what > you saw with your RFC? (I assume it helped since you've included in > here.) Yes, I updated the commit message with the benchmarks of this patch series. Though, given that I'm running in a qemu-kvm on my laptop that has a lot of stuffs running on it (and with the cursed ThinkPad T480 CPU throttling), I had to throw much more syscalls at it to pass the "approximately equals" expectation... though no idea about what's going on with 732 vs 737. Or if you mean if I expected these results, yes. YiFei Zhu _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@lists.linux-foundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.8 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN,FREEMAIL_FROM, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS, URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 91E55C4346E for ; Fri, 25 Sep 2020 01:36:32 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 464EB2083B for ; Fri, 25 Sep 2020 01:36:32 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b="JRYOS6/E" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726906AbgIYBgH (ORCPT ); Thu, 24 Sep 2020 21:36:07 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:47610 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726704AbgIYBgH (ORCPT ); Thu, 24 Sep 2020 21:36:07 -0400 Received: from mail-pf1-x444.google.com (mail-pf1-x444.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::444]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2F8AEC0613CE; Thu, 24 Sep 2020 18:36:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-pf1-x444.google.com with SMTP id o20so1576598pfp.11; Thu, 24 Sep 2020 18:36:07 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=fgmv1ZdL7UUXwEEal/l25It5GrSTWQVpHodie+cr1w0=; b=JRYOS6/EWijo06SB1EWdfUNPiLTpKE4BWfZ0U4z5NiWUiGwaLLEqBs82QOWSq7GHC/ Lg0nuso6br2icKGo48MjaGPbXt5XfW+FuOep9LZ2ZL0UgBjAiyXvLvw+nU+81bi+nlID UiABi7ZcXRSWMSOkl541UuJvrGPaFFf8TcNRndTcWBo71DcNu87UqP4PY0icMqLb/S4N vtzUMuvt3t3P8x6O73AmiMAueQDgU0z+uV7hj+1vegevWLFaqER5uz+8cjRUOqXWyv27 14y6BlTCkF2D9NOMS0AdWMvO3p//u2+Qf4Tcni0GdmPnH7KSeAVIUvMMT2acozLbmbiR lUAA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=fgmv1ZdL7UUXwEEal/l25It5GrSTWQVpHodie+cr1w0=; b=nyxdUYn3y4jQ7cPWFnZyBNZDiCoMnd1zC/f7moFGHX9UIWCnKsEKrmvB87oGXK3Xpv 5EE4y3MtnPLXqIUISHEtr2DbhROtOHA59Ud8XXhFZ0SQrseXHhf8mxd8KmePSfcBasqP D7Amor6XLsEFNzdh6TAD3h4H1QMHQuJVuNPuaWTgq8ysupib82oHu70xCaTbigj9/FVN 5T44Pvb4cT5rNZyRosYhdld8F4qjstYAP/A3OzLAboOOJvZKEKy7PKed18SByY7z8IZx sPvicbIiM2dNZFC0nMZQGIc+z/IqnSoPYxo9547B+BjnoOkRva9vA5Vooe1bdkfpS8G3 y0UA== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532RaQ0J5v+lVgvnnYnUNRfgfxAUKhxPq+UdTIlea8Ue4X/IWzVr zFUSxM6WgH8MRSgjNZMp0nIqCVReBna1K0Pq6+Q= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxyv0KcwQtrdMtQkTLyrl57OgqJRSWjXZ4r4Z8vu+1JbH/U88tfk1cIxqTiWE1k97krRxR311A3MkeH2l3hX0c= X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:7445:b029:d1:dea3:a3ca with SMTP id e5-20020a1709027445b02900d1dea3a3camr1876986plt.19.1600997766672; Thu, 24 Sep 2020 18:36:06 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <202009241646.5739BE3@keescook> In-Reply-To: <202009241646.5739BE3@keescook> From: YiFei Zhu Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2020 20:35:55 -0500 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 seccomp 5/6] selftests/seccomp: Compare bitmap vs filter overhead To: Kees Cook Cc: Linux Containers , YiFei Zhu , bpf , kernel list , Aleksa Sarai , Andrea Arcangeli , Andy Lutomirski , Dimitrios Skarlatos , Giuseppe Scrivano , Hubertus Franke , Jack Chen , Jann Horn , Josep Torrellas , Tianyin Xu , Tobin Feldman-Fitzthum , Tycho Andersen , Valentin Rothberg , Will Drewry Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 6:47 PM Kees Cook wrote: > BTW, did this benchmark tool's results match your expectations from what > you saw with your RFC? (I assume it helped since you've included in > here.) Yes, I updated the commit message with the benchmarks of this patch series. Though, given that I'm running in a qemu-kvm on my laptop that has a lot of stuffs running on it (and with the cursed ThinkPad T480 CPU throttling), I had to throw much more syscalls at it to pass the "approximately equals" expectation... though no idea about what's going on with 732 vs 737. Or if you mean if I expected these results, yes. YiFei Zhu