Subject: Re: Importing PaX features to NetBSD
To: Tim Rightnour <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Matt Thomas <email@example.com>
Date: 12/18/2005 13:36:20
Tim Rightnour wrote:
> On 18-Dec-2005 matthew green wrote:
>>you fail to understand the performance issue here. when, eg, libc is
>>not mapped at the same address as other processes, the performance hit
>>is in the range of 30-40% on some platforms. it's not about start up
>>it is about the MMU being constantly trashed.
> Whats the harm in providing the switch to turn it on though? It sounds like a
> reasonable not-on-by-default kind of security thing.
Not only should it be switchable, it must be compilable out. I should be able
to build a kernel without these security features.
> Speaking personally.. I don't care if we have a million security features in
> the kernel, as long as I can shut the annoying ones off, and the test-for-off
> code doesn't bog the kernel down.
and as long as I can prevent them from getting into the kernel. Do INSTALL
kernels need these? I doubt it.
Matt Thomas email: firstname.lastname@example.org
3am Software Foundry www: http://3am-software.com/bio/matt/
Cupertino, CA disclaimer: I avow all knowledge of this message.