Re: [PATCH 02/11] mm: call import_iovec() instead of rw_copy_check_uvector() in process_vm_rw()
From: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
Date: 2020-09-21 16:28:06
Also in:
io-uring, keyrings, linux-arch, linux-arm-kernel, linux-block, linux-fsdevel, linux-mips, linux-mm, linux-s390, linux-scsi, linux-security-module, linuxppc-dev, lkml, sparclinux
On Mon, Sep 21, 2020 at 03:44:00PM +0000, David Laight wrote:
From: Al Viroquoted
Sent: 21 September 2020 16:30 On Mon, Sep 21, 2020 at 03:21:35PM +0000, David Laight wrote:quoted
You really don't want to be looping through the array twice.Profiles, please.I did some profiling of send() v sendmsg() much earlier in the year. I can't remember the exact details but the extra cost of sendmsg() is far more than you might expect. (I was timing sending fully built IPv4 UDP packets using a raw socket.) About half the difference does away if you change the copy_from_user() to __copy_from_user() when reading the struct msghdr and iov[] from userspace (user copy hardening is expensive).
Wha...? So the difference is within 4 times the overhead of the hardening checks done for one call of copy_from_user()?
The rest is just code path, my gut feeling is that a lot of that is in import_iovec(). Remember semdmsg() is likely to be called with an iov count of 1.
... which makes that loop unlikely to be noticable in the entire mess, whether you pass it once or twice. IOW, unless you can show profiles where that loop is sufficiently hot or if you can show the timings change from splitting it in two, I'll remain very sceptical about that assertion.