On Fri, Jul 06, 2018 at 12:56:58PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 6, 2018 at 12:38 PM Mathieu Desnoyers
> <mathieu.desnoyers@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > Should I change all 4 bytes __get_user()/__put_user() in kernel/rseq.c
> > for get_user()/put_user() to ensure consistency ?
>
> Probably.
>
> *If* this actually turns out to be somethinig that shows up on
> profiles, it's almost certainly going to be the STAC/CLAC instructions
> ("perf report" tends to report them as three one-byte nop's because
> that's how they look before instruction replacement).
>
> And then it's not __get/put_user() that will improve things, but doing a
>
> user_access_begin();
>
> .. do unsafe_get/put_user() ..
>
> user_access_end();
>
> that will improve performance.
>
> But it is *very* seldom useful. We have it in a handful of places in
> the kernel, and the most noticeable one is
> lib/{strnlen,strncpy_from}_user.c
Also, __get_user() is probably going to become the same as get_user()
when I finish the Spectre v1 ARM mitigations, because there'll be no
point in __get_user() being any different. For those mitigations,
we're going to have to check the pointer against the address limit
inside __get_user() and NULL it out, just like get_user() does, which
makes the whole distinction between the two completely pointless.
Is this not also the case on other architectures affected by Spectre
variant 1, hmm?
--
RMK's Patch system: http://www.armlinux.org.uk/developer/patches/
FTTC broadband for 0.8mile line in suburbia: sync at 13.8Mbps down 630kbps up
According to speedtest.net: 13Mbps down 490kbps up
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-api" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
