|
Revision tags: v5.15.41, v5.15.40, v5.15.39, v5.15.38, v5.15.37, v5.15.36, v5.15.35, v5.15.34, v5.15.33, v5.15.32, v5.15.31, v5.15.30, v5.15.29, v5.15.28, v5.15.27, v5.15.26, v5.15.25, v5.15.24, v5.15.23, v5.15.22, v5.15.21, v5.15.20, v5.15.19, v5.15.18, v5.15.17, v5.4.173, v5.15.16, v5.15.15, v5.15.10, v5.15.9, v5.15.8, v5.15.7, v5.15.6, v5.15.5, v5.15.4, v5.15.3, v5.15.2, v5.15.1, v5.15, v5.14.14, v5.14.13, v5.14.12, v5.14.11, v5.14.10, v5.14.9, v5.14.8, v5.14.7, v5.14.6, v5.10.67, v5.10.66, v5.14.5, v5.14.4, v5.10.65, v5.14.3, v5.10.64, v5.14.2, v5.10.63, v5.14.1, v5.10.62, v5.14, v5.10.61, v5.10.60, v5.10.53, v5.10.52, v5.10.51, v5.10.50, v5.10.49, v5.13, v5.10.46, v5.10.43, v5.10.42, v5.10.41, v5.10.40, v5.10.39, v5.4.119, v5.10.36, v5.10.35, v5.10.34, v5.4.116, v5.10.33, v5.12, v5.10.32, v5.10.31, v5.10.30, v5.10.27, v5.10.26, v5.10.25, v5.10.24, v5.10.23, v5.10.22, v5.10.21, v5.10.20, v5.10.19, v5.4.101, v5.10.18, v5.10.17, v5.11, v5.10.16, v5.10.15, v5.10.14, v5.10, v5.8.17, v5.8.16, v5.8.15, v5.9 |
|
| #
192cf322 |
| 11-Oct-2020 |
Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org> |
selftests/seccomp: Compare bitmap vs filter overhead
As part of the seccomp benchmarking, include the expectations with
regard to the timing behavior of the constant action bitmaps, and report
incon
selftests/seccomp: Compare bitmap vs filter overhead
As part of the seccomp benchmarking, include the expectations with
regard to the timing behavior of the constant action bitmaps, and report
inconsistencies better.
Example output with constant action bitmaps on x86:
$ sudo ./seccomp_benchmark 100000000
Current BPF sysctl settings:
net.core.bpf_jit_enable = 1
net.core.bpf_jit_harden = 0
Benchmarking 200000000 syscalls...
129.359381409 - 0.008724424 = 129350656985 (129.4s)
getpid native: 646 ns
264.385890006 - 129.360453229 = 135025436777 (135.0s)
getpid RET_ALLOW 1 filter (bitmap): 675 ns
399.400511893 - 264.387045901 = 135013465992 (135.0s)
getpid RET_ALLOW 2 filters (bitmap): 675 ns
545.872866260 - 399.401718327 = 146471147933 (146.5s)
getpid RET_ALLOW 3 filters (full): 732 ns
696.337101319 - 545.874097681 = 150463003638 (150.5s)
getpid RET_ALLOW 4 filters (full): 752 ns
Estimated total seccomp overhead for 1 bitmapped filter: 29 ns
Estimated total seccomp overhead for 2 bitmapped filters: 29 ns
Estimated total seccomp overhead for 3 full filters: 86 ns
Estimated total seccomp overhead for 4 full filters: 106 ns
Estimated seccomp entry overhead: 29 ns
Estimated seccomp per-filter overhead (last 2 diff): 20 ns
Estimated seccomp per-filter overhead (filters / 4): 19 ns
Expectations:
native ≤ 1 bitmap (646 ≤ 675): ✔️
native ≤ 1 filter (646 ≤ 732): ✔️
per-filter (last 2 diff) ≈ per-filter (filters / 4) (20 ≈ 19): ✔️
1 bitmapped ≈ 2 bitmapped (29 ≈ 29): ✔️
entry ≈ 1 bitmapped (29 ≈ 29): ✔️
entry ≈ 2 bitmapped (29 ≈ 29): ✔️
native + entry + (per filter * 4) ≈ 4 filters total (755 ≈ 752): ✔️
[YiFei: Changed commit message to show stats for this patch series]
Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/1b61df3db85c5f7f1b9202722c45e7b39df73ef2.1602431034.git.yifeifz2@illinois.edu
show more ...
|
|
Revision tags: v5.8.14, v5.8.13, v5.8.12, v5.8.11, v5.8.10, v5.8.9, v5.8.8, v5.8.7, v5.8.6, v5.4.62, v5.8.5, v5.8.4, v5.4.61, v5.8.3, v5.4.60, v5.8.2, v5.4.59, v5.8.1, v5.4.58, v5.4.57, v5.4.56, v5.8, v5.7.12, v5.4.55, v5.7.11, v5.4.54, v5.7.10, v5.4.53, v5.4.52, v5.7.9, v5.7.8, v5.4.51, v5.4.50, v5.7.7, v5.4.49, v5.7.6, v5.7.5, v5.4.48, v5.7.4, v5.7.3, v5.4.47, v5.4.46, v5.7.2, v5.4.45, v5.7.1, v5.4.44 |
|
| #
bc32c9c8 |
| 01-Jun-2020 |
Thadeu Lima de Souza Cascardo <cascardo@canonical.com> |
selftests/seccomp: use 90s as timeout
As seccomp_benchmark tries to calibrate how many samples will take more
than 5 seconds to execute, it may end up picking up a number of samples
that take 10 (bu
selftests/seccomp: use 90s as timeout
As seccomp_benchmark tries to calibrate how many samples will take more
than 5 seconds to execute, it may end up picking up a number of samples
that take 10 (but up to 12) seconds. As the calibration will take double
that time, it takes around 20 seconds. Then, it executes the whole thing
again, and then once more, with some added overhead. So, the thing might
take more than 40 seconds, which is too close to the 45s timeout.
That is very dependent on the system where it's executed, so may not be
observed always, but it has been observed on x86 VMs. Using a 90s timeout
seems safe enough.
Signed-off-by: Thadeu Lima de Souza Cascardo <cascardo@canonical.com>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20200601123202.1183526-1-cascardo@canonical.com
Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
show more ...
|
|
Revision tags: v5.8.14, v5.8.13, v5.8.12, v5.8.11, v5.8.10, v5.8.9, v5.8.8, v5.8.7, v5.8.6, v5.4.62, v5.8.5, v5.8.4, v5.4.61, v5.8.3, v5.4.60, v5.8.2, v5.4.59, v5.8.1, v5.4.58, v5.4.57, v5.4.56, v5.8, v5.7.12, v5.4.55, v5.7.11, v5.4.54, v5.7.10, v5.4.53, v5.4.52, v5.7.9, v5.7.8, v5.4.51, v5.4.50, v5.7.7, v5.4.49, v5.7.6, v5.7.5, v5.4.48, v5.7.4, v5.7.3, v5.4.47, v5.4.46, v5.7.2, v5.4.45, v5.7.1, v5.4.44 |
|
| #
bc32c9c8 |
| 01-Jun-2020 |
Thadeu Lima de Souza Cascardo <cascardo@canonical.com> |
selftests/seccomp: use 90s as timeout
As seccomp_benchmark tries to calibrate how many samples will take more
than 5 seconds to execute, it may end up picking up a number of samples
selftests/seccomp: use 90s as timeout
As seccomp_benchmark tries to calibrate how many samples will take more
than 5 seconds to execute, it may end up picking up a number of samples
that take 10 (but up to 12) seconds. As the calibration will take double
that time, it takes around 20 seconds. Then, it executes the whole thing
again, and then once more, with some added overhead. So, the thing might
take more than 40 seconds, which is too close to the 45s timeout.
That is very dependent on the system where it's executed, so may not be
observed always, but it has been observed on x86 VMs. Using a 90s timeout
seems safe enough.
Signed-off-by: Thadeu Lima de Souza Cascardo <cascardo@canonical.com>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20200601123202.1183526-1-cascardo@canonical.com
Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
show more ...
|