Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Sender: Guenter Roeck <groeck7@gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 26 Dec 2022 14:10:54 -0800
From:   Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net>
To:     Kees Cook <kees@kernel.org>
Cc:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk@kernel.org>, Chao Yu <chao@kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@google.com>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
Subject: Re: Linux 6.2-rc1
Message-ID: <20221226221054.GB2629353@roeck-us.net>
References: <CAHk-=wgf929uGOVpiWALPyC7pv_9KbwB2EAvQ3C4woshZZ5zqQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <20221226195206.GA2626419@roeck-us.net>
 <CAHk-=whD1zMyt4c7g6-+tWvVweyb-6oHMT_+ZVHqe1EXwtFpCQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <DA632860-284E-4923-8863-9D2745DD289E@kernel.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <DA632860-284E-4923-8863-9D2745DD289E@kernel.org>
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Dec 26, 2022 at 01:03:59PM -0800, Kees Cook wrote:
> >>
> >> ...
> >> [   18.494320]     ok 2 memcpy_test
> >> [   52.969037]     ok 3 memcpy_large_test
> >> ...
> >> [   52.974505]     ok 4 memmove_test
> >> [   87.325400]     ok 5 memmove_large_test
> >> [  143.562760] INFO: task swapper/0:1 blocked for more than 46 seconds.
[ ... ]
> >>
> >> That is too much for my test bed. I dropped this test as result. This means
> >> that extending the tests has, at least in the context of my testing, the
> >> opposite effect.
> >
> >Kees? This indeed seems counter-productive..
> 
> Hrm, that is not supposed to take THAT long... But yes a cross-arxh qemu run would be slow. :(
> 
> The changes there were to help find any future memcpy problem (like seen while porting the i386 memcpy asm...) I'll try to get this reduced. Dropping the test isn't so great. :)
> 

Would it be possible to hide the expensive tests behind an extra Kconfig
option ?

Thanks,
Guenter