From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
To: Denys Vlasenko <dvlasenk@redhat.com>
Cc: Brian Gerst <brgerst@gmail.com>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/asm/entry/64: better check for canonical address
Date: Sat, 28 Mar 2015 10:11:06 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20150328091106.GA5361@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <55154DB3.9000008@redhat.com>
* Denys Vlasenko <dvlasenk@redhat.com> wrote:
> On 03/27/2015 01:16 PM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >>> Indeed, an IRET ought to be pretty cheap for same-ring interrupt
> >>> returns in any case.
> >>
> >> Unfortunately, it is not. Try attached program.
> >>
> >> On this CPU, 1 ns ~= 3 cycles.
> >>
> >> $ ./timing_test64 callret
> >> 10000 loops in 0.00008s = 7.87 nsec/loop for callret
> >> 100000 loops in 0.00076s = 7.56 nsec/loop for callret
> >> 1000000 loops in 0.00548s = 5.48 nsec/loop for callret
> >> 10000000 loops in 0.02882s = 2.88 nsec/loop for callret
> >> 100000000 loops in 0.18334s = 1.83 nsec/loop for callret
> >> 200000000 loops in 0.36051s = 1.80 nsec/loop for callret
> >> 400000000 loops in 0.71632s = 1.79 nsec/loop for callret
> >>
> >> Near call + near ret = 5 cycles
> >>
> >> $ ./timing_test64 lret
> >> 10000 loops in 0.00034s = 33.95 nsec/loop for lret
> >> 100000 loops in 0.00328s = 32.83 nsec/loop for lret
> >> 1000000 loops in 0.04541s = 45.41 nsec/loop for lret
> >> 10000000 loops in 0.32130s = 32.13 nsec/loop for lret
> >> 20000000 loops in 0.64191s = 32.10 nsec/loop for lret
> >>
> >> push my_cs + push next_label + far ret = ~90 cycles
> >>
> >> $ ./timing_test64 iret
> >> 10000 loops in 0.00344s = 343.90 nsec/loop for iret
> >> 100000 loops in 0.01890s = 188.97 nsec/loop for iret
> >> 1000000 loops in 0.08228s = 82.28 nsec/loop for iret
> >> 10000000 loops in 0.77910s = 77.91 nsec/loop for iret
> >>
> >> This is the "same-ring interrupt return". ~230 cycles! :(
> >
> > Ugh, that's really expensive! Why is that so? Same-ring irqs are
> > supposedly a lot simpler.
>
> Descriptor checks for restored CS and SS,
> checking canonical-ness of RIP,
> supporting "return to TSS" (flags.NT bit),
> "return to VM86" (flags.VM bit),
> complex logic around restoring RFLAGS
> ("don't allow CPL3 to be able to disable interrupts...
> ...unless their flags.IOPL is 3." Gasp)
> return to 16-bit code ("do not touch high 16 bits")
>
> All of this is a giant PITA to encode in microcode.
I guess they could optimize it by adding a single "I am a modern OS
executing regular userspace" flag to the descriptor [or expressing the
same as a separate instruction], to avoid all that legacy crap that
won't trigger on like 99.999999% of systems ...
Thanks,
Ingo
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-03-28 9:11 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 32+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-03-26 12:42 [PATCH] x86/asm/entry/64: better check for canonical address Denys Vlasenko
2015-03-26 18:45 ` Andy Lutomirski
2015-03-27 8:57 ` Borislav Petkov
2015-03-30 14:27 ` Denys Vlasenko
2015-03-30 14:30 ` Andy Lutomirski
2015-03-30 14:45 ` Andy Lutomirski
2015-03-27 8:11 ` Ingo Molnar
2015-03-27 10:45 ` Denys Vlasenko
2015-03-27 11:17 ` Ingo Molnar
2015-03-27 11:28 ` Brian Gerst
2015-03-27 11:34 ` Ingo Molnar
2015-03-27 12:14 ` Denys Vlasenko
2015-03-27 12:16 ` Ingo Molnar
2015-03-27 12:31 ` Denys Vlasenko
2015-03-28 9:11 ` Ingo Molnar [this message]
2015-03-29 19:36 ` Denys Vlasenko
2015-03-29 21:12 ` Andy Lutomirski
2015-03-29 21:46 ` Denys Vlasenko
2015-03-31 16:43 ` Ingo Molnar
2015-03-31 17:08 ` Andy Lutomirski
2015-03-31 17:31 ` Denys Vlasenko
2015-03-27 11:27 ` Brian Gerst
2015-03-27 11:31 ` Ingo Molnar
2015-03-27 21:37 ` Andy Lutomirski
2015-04-02 17:37 ` Denys Vlasenko
2015-04-02 18:10 ` Ingo Molnar
2015-04-21 16:27 Denys Vlasenko
2015-04-21 18:08 ` Andy Lutomirski
2015-04-23 15:10 ` Borislav Petkov
2015-04-23 15:41 ` Andy Lutomirski
2015-04-23 15:49 ` Borislav Petkov
2015-04-23 15:52 ` Andy Lutomirski
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=20150328091106.GA5361@gmail.com \
--to=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=bp@alien8.de \
--cc=brgerst@gmail.com \
--cc=dvlasenk@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=luto@amacapital.net \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=x86@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).