On Tue Sep 24, 2024 at 8:28 PM EEST, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > On Tue Sep 24, 2024 at 8:26 PM EEST, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > > On Tue Sep 24, 2024 at 7:36 PM EEST, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > > > On Tue Sep 24, 2024 at 7:33 PM EEST, James Bottomley wrote: > > > > On Tue, 2024-09-24 at 19:29 +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > > > > > On Tue Sep 24, 2024 at 4:48 PM EEST, James Bottomley wrote: > > > > [...] > > > > > > Patch 3 is completely unnecessary: the null key is only used to > > > > > > salt the session and is not required to be resident while the > > > > > > session is used (so can be flushed after session creation) > > > > > > therefore keeping it around serves no purpose once the session is > > > > > > created and simply clutters up the TPM volatile handle slots. (I > > > > > > don't know of a case where we use all the slots in a kernel > > > > > > operation, but since we don't need it lets not find out when we get > > > > > > one). So I advise dropping patch 3. > > > > > > > > > > Let's go this through just to check I'm understanding. > > > > > > > > > > Holding null key had radical effect on boot time: it cut it down by > > > > > 5 secons down to 15 seconds: > > > > > > > > > > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-integrity/CALSz7m1WG7fZ9UuO0URgCZEDG7r_wB4Ev_4mOHJThH_d1Ed1nw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx/ > > > > > > > > > > Then in subsequent version I implemented lazy auth session and boot > > > > > time went down to 9.7 seconds. > > > > > > > > > > So is the point you're trying to make that since auth session is > > > > > already held as long as we can and they flushed in synchronous > > > > > point too, I can just as well drop patch 3? > > > > > > > > Yes, because the null key is only used in session generation which is > > > > now lazy, it adds or subtracts nothing from the timings. When you're > > > > forced to flush the session, the null key goes too, so you again have > > > > to restore it from the context. When you can keep the session you > > > > don't need the null key because you're not regenerating it. > > > > > > Yeah, OK, then we're in sync with this. It's evolutionary cruft. > > > > > > Just had to check that the logic matches how I projected your earlier > > > comment because these are sensitive changes. > > > > I'm definitely going keeep 1/5 and 2/5 as they are still bug fixes. > > > > So they will appear in v6 unchanged and perf fixes (which are not > > functional fixes) should not be built on top of broken code. > > And 3/5 is actually required because it saves of doing flush during > the boot if nothing else. > > We are wasting more time so I don't want to waste it for nothing. Anything beyong 50 ms matters and that flush certainly costs more than that. As I already stated in earlier version, we need to find more of these "50 ms and 100 ms there sites. The functional fixes are required because perf fix is always *less critical* than perf fix. Please pay more attention to proper error rollback next time, that's all I can say on that. It's not my fault that it is broken. BR, Jarkko
