Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::3:7 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::3:7;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <202311061616.cd495695-oliver.sang@intel.com> <3865842.1700061614@warthog.procyon.org.uk>
 <CAHk-=whM-cEwAsLtKsf5dYwV7nDTaRv1bUKLVBstMAQBug24uQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAHk-=wjCUckvZUQf7gqp2ziJUWxVpikM_6srFdbcNdBJTxExRg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAHk-=wjhs6uuedgz-7HbcPtirEq+vvjJBY-M2zyteJwBhOMZhg@mail.gmail.com> <20231115190938.GGZVUXcuUjI3i1JRAB@fat_crate.local>
In-Reply-To: <20231115190938.GGZVUXcuUjI3i1JRAB@fat_crate.local>
From:   Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Date:   Wed, 15 Nov 2023 14:15:46 -0500
Message-ID: <CAHk-=whFW+uWOmOtRNh0What_fu8Xo8KF2+EeUH1kn4qFxGAhA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [linus:master] [iov_iter] c9eec08bac: vm-scalability.throughput
 -16.9% regression
To:     Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>
Cc:     David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>,
        kernel test robot <oliver.sang@intel.com>,
        oe-lkp@lists.linux.dev, lkp@intel.com,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Christian Brauner <brauner@kernel.org>,
        Alexander Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
        Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>, Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>,
        Christian Brauner <christian@brauner.io>,
        Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>,
        David Laight <David.Laight@aculab.com>, ying.huang@intel.com,
        feng.tang@intel.com, fengwei.yin@intel.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, 15 Nov 2023 at 14:10, Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de> wrote:
>
> Should we define an alternative_memcpy() which is used *only* during
> rewriting so that this becomes a non-issue?

Yeah, I think the instruction rewriting should use something that
explicitly cannot possibility itself need rewriting, and a plain
'memcpy()' is obviously that.

The good news is that at least things like structure copies would
*not* trigger that alternative, so it's only explicit memcpy() calls
that my patch changes. But I would not be surprised if instruction
rewriting does that. I didn't actually check.

> Yours looks simple enough and makes sense. Lemme poke at it a bit in the
> coming days and see what happens.

Note that it has a nasty interaction with fortify-source, which is why
it has that hacky "#undef memcpy" in that unrelated header.

Also note that I was being very very lazy in how I re-used the
"rep_movs_alternative" function that we already have. And it's
actually a bad laziness, because our existing rep_movs_alternative
does the exception handling for user mode faults.

We don't actually want exception handling for 'memcpy()', because it
could hide bugs. If a memcpy() gets a bad pointer, we want the oops,
not a partial copy.

So my patch really is broken. It might happen to work when everything
else goes right, and it's small, but it is very much a "proof of
concept" rather than something that is actually acceptable.

               Linus