On Mon, Oct 2, 2023 at 1:06 PM Paolo Abeni <pabeni@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Thu, 2023-09-28 at 22:24 +0200, KP Singh wrote: > > # Background > > > > LSM hooks (callbacks) are currently invoked as indirect function calls. These > > callbacks are registered into a linked list at boot time as the order of the > > LSMs can be configured on the kernel command line with the "lsm=" command line > > parameter. > > > > Indirect function calls have a high overhead due to retpoline mitigation for > > various speculative execution attacks. > > > > Retpolines remain relevant even with newer generation CPUs as recently > > discovered speculative attacks, like Spectre BHB need Retpolines to mitigate > > against branch history injection and still need to be used in combination with > > newer mitigation features like eIBRS. > > > > This overhead is especially significant for the "bpf" LSM which allows the user > > to implement LSM functionality with eBPF program. In order to facilitate this > > the "bpf" LSM provides a default callback for all LSM hooks. When enabled, > > the "bpf" LSM incurs an unnecessary / avoidable indirect call. This is > > especially bad in OS hot paths (e.g. in the networking stack). > > This overhead prevents the adoption of bpf LSM on performance critical > > systems, and also, in general, slows down all LSMs. > > > > Since we know the address of the enabled LSM callbacks at compile time and only > > the order is determined at boot time, the LSM framework can allocate static > > calls for each of the possible LSM callbacks and these calls can be updated once > > the order is determined at boot. > > > > This series is a respin of the RFC proposed by Paul Renauld (renauld@xxxxxxxxxx) > > and Brendan Jackman (jackmanb@xxxxxxxxxx) [1] > > > > # 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 > > FTR, I also measure a ~3% tput improvement in UDP stream test over > loopback. > Thanks for running the numbers and testing these patches, greatly appreciated! > @KP Singh, I would have appreciated being cc-ed here, since I provided Definitely, a miss on my part. Will keep you Cc'ed in any future revisions. I think we can also add a Tested-by: tag on the main patch and add your performance numbers to the commit as well. - KP > feedback on a previous revision (as soon as I learned of this effort). > > Cheers, > > Paolo >
