Re: [RFC 5/5] x86,seccomp: Add a seccomp fastpath
From: Alexei Starovoitov
Date: Wed Jun 11 2014 - 17:29:27 EST
On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 1:23 PM, Andy Lutomirski <luto@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On my VM, getpid takes about 70ns. Before this patch, adding a
> single-instruction always-accept seccomp filter added about 134ns of
> overhead to getpid. With this patch, the overhead is down to about
> 13ns.
interesting.
Is this the gain from patch 4 into patch 5 or from patch 0 to patch 5?
13ns is still with seccomp enabled, but without filters?
> I'm not really thrilled by this patch. It has two main issues:
>
> 1. Calling into code in kernel/seccomp.c from assembly feels ugly.
>
> 2. The x86 64-bit syscall entry now has four separate code paths:
> fast, seccomp only, audit only, and slow. This kind of sucks.
> Would it be worth trying to rewrite the whole thing in C with a
> two-phase slow path approach like I'm using here for seccomp?
>
> Signed-off-by: Andy Lutomirski <luto@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> arch/x86/kernel/entry_64.S | 45 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> include/linux/seccomp.h | 4 ++--
> 2 files changed, 47 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/entry_64.S b/arch/x86/kernel/entry_64.S
> index f9e713a..feb32b2 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/entry_64.S
> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/entry_64.S
> @@ -683,6 +683,45 @@ sysret_signal:
> FIXUP_TOP_OF_STACK %r11, -ARGOFFSET
> jmp int_check_syscall_exit_work
>
> +#ifdef CONFIG_SECCOMP
> + /*
> + * Fast path for seccomp without any other slow path triggers.
> + */
> +seccomp_fastpath:
> + /* Build seccomp_data */
> + pushq %r9 /* args[5] */
> + pushq %r8 /* args[4] */
> + pushq %r10 /* args[3] */
> + pushq %rdx /* args[2] */
> + pushq %rsi /* args[1] */
> + pushq %rdi /* args[0] */
> + pushq RIP-ARGOFFSET+6*8(%rsp) /* rip */
> + pushq %rax /* nr and junk */
> + movl $AUDIT_ARCH_X86_64, 4(%rsp) /* arch */
> + movq %rsp, %rdi
> + call seccomp_phase1
the assembler code is pretty much repeating what C does in
populate_seccomp_data(). Assuming the whole gain came from
patch 5 why asm version is so much faster than C?
it skips SAVE/RESTORE_REST... what else?
If the most of the gain is from all patches combined (mainly from
2 phase approach) then why bother with asm?
Somehow it feels that the gain is due to better branch prediction
in asm version. If you change few 'unlikely' in C to 'likely', it may
get to the same performance...
btw patches #1-3 look good to me. especially #1 is nice.
> + addq $8*8, %rsp
> + cmpq $1, %rax
> + ja seccomp_invoke_phase2
> + LOAD_ARGS 0 /* restore clobbered regs */
> + jb system_call_fastpath
> + jmp ret_from_sys_call
> +
> +seccomp_invoke_phase2:
> + SAVE_REST
> + FIXUP_TOP_OF_STACK %rdi
> + movq %rax,%rdi
> + call seccomp_phase2
> +
> + /* if seccomp says to skip, then set orig_ax to -1 and skip */
> + test %eax,%eax
> + jz 1f
> + movq $-1, ORIG_RAX(%rsp)
> +1:
> + mov ORIG_RAX(%rsp), %rax /* reload rax */
> + jmp system_call_post_trace /* and maybe do the syscall */
> +#endif
> +
> #ifdef CONFIG_AUDITSYSCALL
> /*
> * Fast path for syscall audit without full syscall trace.
> @@ -717,6 +756,10 @@ sysret_audit:
>
> /* Do syscall tracing */
> tracesys:
> +#ifdef CONFIG_SECCOMP
> + testl $(_TIF_WORK_SYSCALL_ENTRY & ~_TIF_SECCOMP),TI_flags+THREAD_INFO(%rsp,RIP-ARGOFFSET)
> + jz seccomp_fastpath
> +#endif
> #ifdef CONFIG_AUDITSYSCALL
> testl $(_TIF_WORK_SYSCALL_ENTRY & ~_TIF_SYSCALL_AUDIT),TI_flags+THREAD_INFO(%rsp,RIP-ARGOFFSET)
> jz auditsys
> @@ -725,6 +768,8 @@ tracesys:
> FIXUP_TOP_OF_STACK %rdi
> movq %rsp,%rdi
> call syscall_trace_enter
> +
> +system_call_post_trace:
> /*
> * Reload arg registers from stack in case ptrace changed them.
> * We don't reload %rax because syscall_trace_enter() returned
> diff --git a/include/linux/seccomp.h b/include/linux/seccomp.h
> index 4fc7a84..d3d4c52 100644
> --- a/include/linux/seccomp.h
> +++ b/include/linux/seccomp.h
> @@ -37,8 +37,8 @@ static inline int secure_computing(void)
> #define SECCOMP_PHASE1_OK 0
> #define SECCOMP_PHASE1_SKIP 1
>
> -extern u32 seccomp_phase1(struct seccomp_data *sd);
> -int seccomp_phase2(u32 phase1_result);
> +asmlinkage __visible extern u32 seccomp_phase1(struct seccomp_data *sd);
> +asmlinkage __visible int seccomp_phase2(u32 phase1_result);
> #else
> extern void secure_computing_strict(int this_syscall);
> #endif
> --
> 1.9.3
>
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/