Date: Sun, 20 Jul 2014 19:49:34 +0200 From: Oliver Pinter <oliver.pntr@gmail.com> To: Pedro Giffuni <pfg@freebsd.org> Cc: PaX Team <pageexec@freemail.hu>, freebsd-arch@freebsd.org, Shawn Webb <lattera@gmail.com>, Bryan Drewery <bdrewery@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: [RFC] ASLR Whitepaper and Candidate Final Patch Message-ID: <CAPjTQNFnQXA0yRYE7JOM7Z538epLA2LEVXhWYGqN2Dh6GtD6-g@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <96C72773-3239-427E-A90B-D05FF0F5B782@freebsd.org> References: <96C72773-3239-427E-A90B-D05FF0F5B782@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 7/20/14, Pedro Giffuni <pfg@freebsd.org> wrote: > (Assuming @FreeBSD addresses are subscribed to arch, or check the archives) > > FWIW, > > The issues I pointed out are still standing: > > - It is yet undetermined what the performance effect will be, and it is not > clear (but seems likely from past measurements) if there will be a > performance hit even when ASLR is off. > -Apparently there are applications that will segfault (?). > > I wouldn't object to see it in the tree though: it has obviously been the > result of a lot of work and it is configurable and well integrated. It will > certainly have to be some time in the tree and undergo extensive testing > before turning it on by default though so it sounds reasonable to bring it > in but leave it initially inactive. > > Pedro. Probably pho@ has free time, to test ASLR changes?
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAPjTQNFnQXA0yRYE7JOM7Z538epLA2LEVXhWYGqN2Dh6GtD6-g>