Re: [PATCH v4 54/57] x86/mm: convert arch_within_stack_frames() to use the new unwinder

[Josh Poimboeuf]

On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 03:27:19PM -0500, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 19, 2016 at 04:55:22PM -0500, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> > On Fri, Aug 19, 2016 at 11:27:18AM -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
> > > On Thu, Aug 18, 2016 at 6:06 AM, Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > Convert arch_within_stack_frames() to use the new unwinder.
> > > >
> > > > This also changes some existing behavior:
> > > >
> > > > - Skip checking of pt_regs frames.
> > > > - Warn if it can't reach the grandparent's stack frame.
> > > > - Warn if it doesn't unwind to the end of the stack.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > 
> > > All the stuff touching usercopy looks good to me. One question,
> > > though, in looking through the unwinder. It seems like it's much more
> > > complex than just the frame-hopping that the old
> > > arch_within_stack_frames() did, but I'm curious to hear what you think
> > > about its performance. We'll be calling this with every usercopy that
> > > touches the stack, so I'd like to be able to estimate the performance
> > > impact of this replacement...
> > 
> > Yeah, good point.  I'll take some measurements from before and after and
> > get back to you.
> 
> I took some before/after measurements by enclosing the affected
> functions with ktime calls to get the total time spent in each function,
> and did a "find /usr >/dev/null" to trigger a bunch of user copies.
> 
> 	copy_to/from_user	check_object_size	arch_within_stack_frames
> before: 13ms			6.8ms			0.61ms
> after: 	17ms			11ms			4.6ms
> 
> The unwinder port made arch_within_stack_frames() *much* (8x) slower
> than its current simple implementation, and added about 30% (4ms) to the
> total copy_to/from_user() run time.
> 
> Note that hardened usercopy itself is already quite slow: it made user
> copies about 52% slower.  With the unwinder port, that worsened to ~65%.

FWIW, I think I messed up my math summary here.  Hardened usercopy was
roughly 110% slower than normal usercopy (i.e., it took more than twice
as long) with 52% of the usercopy time being consumed by
check_object_size().

With the unwinder, that worsened to 180% slower -- with 65% of the
usercopy time being consumed by check_object_size().

-- 
Josh