linux-hardening - Re: [PATCH] selftests/seccomp: Pin benchmark to single CPU

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2024 11:10:46 +0000
From: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
To: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
Cc: kernel test robot <oliver.sang@...el.com>,
	Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
	Will Drewry <wad@...omium.org>, Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-hardening@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] selftests/seccomp: Pin benchmark to single CPU

On Tue, Feb 06, 2024 at 03:04:32AM -0800, Kees Cook wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 06, 2024 at 10:16:19AM +0000, Mark Brown wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 06, 2024 at 01:56:47AM -0800, Kees Cook wrote:

> > > +	/* Set from highest CPU down. */
> > > +	for (cpu = ncores - 1; cpu >= 0; cpu--) {
> > > +		CPU_ZERO_S(setsz, setp);
> > > +		CPU_SET_S(cpu, setsz, setp);

> > Is there some particular reason to go from the highest CPU number down?
> > Not that it super matters but the default would be to iterate from 0 and
> > there's a comment but it just says the what not the why.

> I was arbitrarily picking a direction and all the examples I could find
> started at 0, so this would be more (?) out of the way. :P

> Without a cpu cgroup, I can't _exclude_ the pinned CPU from other
> processes, so I was pretending the last CPU will be less likely to be
> used.

That feels like it should go in a comment so it's a bit less mysterious.

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (489 bytes)