8% is a huge hit, by all means a module or an option, however I question its need as "standard". I would not want it there unless Im convinced it truely offers protection from a quantifiable risk. I dont want to see the kernel go the way of MS's kernel ,one huge bloated mess.
Lets see some papers/justification for this item, it may not be needed in all situations. regards Thing On Sat, 07 Dec 2002 09:29, Albert Cervera Areny wrote: > I've read in slashdot > (http://bsd.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=02/12/02/2035207) that openbsd has > included stack-smashing protection using the ProPolice > (http://www.trl.ibm.com/projects/security/ssp/) patch for GCC 3.2 > > I think it would be a great idea to use this patch with debian too as soon > as gcc becomes the compiler by default. Protecting the entire system from > this kind of bugs would really be a great security step forward. Would > somebody make some kind of statistics of how many of this year's bugs > wouldn't have made the system vulnerable with this patch? > > Though there is about of 8% performane overhead I think it is worth using > this. And more now that gcc makes programs about 8% faster ;-) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
