lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2020]   [Mar]   [30]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [RFC PATCH v1 44/50] arm64: ptr auth: Use get_random_u64 instead of _bytes
Sorry for the delay responding; I had to re-set-up my arm64
cross-compilation environment.

On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 11:57:45AM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 10, 2019 at 07:15:55AM -0500, George Spelvin wrote:
>> Since these are authentication keys, stored in the kernel as long
>> as they're important, get_random_u64 is fine. In particular,
>> get_random_bytes has significant per-call overhead, so five
>> separate calls is painful.
>
> As I am unaware, how does the cost of get_random_bytes() compare to the
> cost of get_random_u64()?

It's approximately 8 times the cost.

Because get_random_bytes() implements anti-backtracking, it's a minimum
of one global lock and one ChaCha20 operation per call. Even though
chacha_block_generic() returns 64 bytes, for anti-backtracking we use
32 of them to generate a new key and discard the remainder.

get_random_u64() uses the exact same generator, but amortizes the cost by
storing the output in a per-CPU buffer which it only has to refill every
64 bytes generated. 7/8 of the time, it's just a fetch from a per-CPU
data structure.

>> This ended up being a more extensive change, since the previous
>> code was unrolled and 10 calls to get_random_u64() seems excessive.
>> So the code was rearranged to have smaller object size.
>
> It's not really "unrolled", but rather "not a loop", so I'd prefer to
> not artifially make it look like one.

I intended that to mean "not in a loop, but could be". I guess
this entire exchange is about the distinction between "could be"
and "should be". ;-)

Yes, I went overboard, and your proposed change below is perfectly
fine with me.

> Could you please quantify the size difference when going from
> get_random_bytes() to get_random_u64(), if that is excessive enough to
> warrant changing the structure of the code? Otherwise please leave the
> structure as-is as given it is much easier to reason about -- suggestion
> below on how to do that neatly.

Here are the various code sizes:
text data bss dec hex filename
1480 0 0 1480 5c8 arch/arm64/kernel/pointer_auth.o.old
862 0 0 862 35e arch/arm64/kernel/pointer_auth.o.new
1492 0 0 1492 5d4 arch/arm64/kernel/pointer_auth.o.new2
1560 0 0 1560 618 arch/arm64/kernel/pointer_auth.o.new3

"old" is the existing code. "new" is my restructured code.
"new2" is your simple change with a __ptrauth_key_init() helper.
"new3" is with the helper forced noinline.

I shrank the code significantly, but deciding whether that's a net
improvement is your perogative.

I should mention that at the end of my patch series, I added a function
(currently called get_random_nonce(), but that's subject to revision)
which uses the get_random_u64 internals with the same interface as
get_random_bytes(). We could postpone this whole thing until that gets
a final name and merged.


(BTW, somehow in my patch a "#include <linux/prctl.h>" needed in the
revised <asm/pointer_auth.h> got omitted. I probably did something stupid
like added it in my cross-compilation tree but didn't push it back to my
main development tree. Sorry.)

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2020-03-30 21:33    [W:0.073 / U:24.728 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site