>
> It has the virtue of simplicity. Arjan, were you planning on anything
> fancier?
short term: no. (eg 2.6.13).
Long term I wanted to turn this into a bitmask so that you can control
the randomisations individual (eg keep the stack one disable the library
one only)
-
To unsubscribe from this
> It has the virtue of simplicity. Arjan, were you planning on anything
> fancier?
not for 2.6.13; this was the plan
for later I was going to turn it into a bitmask for the individual
randomisations
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Eric Lammerts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, 7 Jul 2005, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> > On Wed, 2005-07-06 at 18:12 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > > Dave Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > On Transmeta CPUs that probably triggers a retranslation of
> > > > x86->native bytecode, if it
On Thu, 7 Jul 2005, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> On Wed, 2005-07-06 at 18:12 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > Dave Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > On Transmeta CPUs that probably triggers a retranslation of
> > > x86->native bytecode, if it thinks it hasn't seen code at that
> > > address befor
On Wed, 2005-07-06 at 23:41 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> Arjan van de Ven <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > > On Transmeta CPUs that probably triggers a retranslation of
> > > > x86->native bytecode, if it thinks it hasn't seen code at that
> > > > address before.
> > > >
> > >
> > > ouc
Arjan van de Ven <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > On Transmeta CPUs that probably triggers a retranslation of
> > > x86->native bytecode, if it thinks it hasn't seen code at that
> > > address before.
> > >
> >
> > ouch. What do we do? Default to off? Default to off on xmeta?
>
> off
On Wed, 2005-07-06 at 18:12 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> Dave Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Jul 06, 2005 at 12:57:19PM -0700, David S. Miller wrote:
> > > From: Paulo Marques <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > Date: Wed, 06 Jul 2005 15:23:56 +0100
> > >
> > > > What is weird is that
Quoting "David S. Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> From: Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2005 18:12:20 -0700
>
> > ouch. What do we do? Default to off? Default to off on xmeta?
>
> Good question. Whatever security is gained by the va randomization
> stuff is definitely no
From: Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2005 18:12:20 -0700
> ouch. What do we do? Default to off? Default to off on xmeta?
Good question. Whatever security is gained by the va randomization
stuff is definitely not worth a 0.23 --> 3.0 second performance
regression.
-
To uns
Dave Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jul 06, 2005 at 12:57:19PM -0700, David S. Miller wrote:
> > From: Paulo Marques <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Date: Wed, 06 Jul 2005 15:23:56 +0100
> >
> > > What is weird is that most of the extra time is being accounted as
> > > user-space time,
From: Dave Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Slowdown with randomize_va_space in 2.6.12.2
Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2005 16:53:15 -0400
> On Wed, Jul 06, 2005 at 12:57:19PM -0700, David S. Miller wrote:
> > It might be attributable to more cpu cache misses in userspace since
&
On Wed, 2005-07-06 at 12:57 -0700, David S. Miller wrote:
> From: Paulo Marques <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Wed, 06 Jul 2005 15:23:56 +0100
>
> > What is weird is that most of the extra time is being accounted as
> > user-space time, but the user-space application is exactly the same in
> > both
On Wed, Jul 06, 2005 at 12:57:19PM -0700, David S. Miller wrote:
> From: Paulo Marques <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Wed, 06 Jul 2005 15:23:56 +0100
>
> > What is weird is that most of the extra time is being accounted as
> > user-space time, but the user-space application is exactly the same
From: Paulo Marques <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wed, 06 Jul 2005 15:23:56 +0100
> What is weird is that most of the extra time is being accounted as
> user-space time, but the user-space application is exactly the same in
> both runs, only the "randomize_va_space" parameter changed.
It might be a
14 matches
Mail list logo