Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2008 09:24:01 +0000 From: "Poul-Henning Kamp" <phk@phk.freebsd.dk> To: Andrey Chernov <ache@nagual.pp.ru> Cc: Daniel Eischen <deischen@freebsd.org>, Max Laier <max@love2party.net>, freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Is fork() hook ever possible? Message-ID: <89740.1221643441@critter.freebsd.dk> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 17 Sep 2008 13:01:01 %2B0400." <20080917090101.GC57480@nagual.pp.ru>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In message <20080917090101.GC57480@nagual.pp.ru>, Andrey Chernov writes: >On Wed, Sep 17, 2008 at 08:04:57AM +0000, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: >> >The situation is not so simple since the library functions can call >> >ar4random() internally (like mktemp() family already and always does) >> >> I have a really hard time seeing how this could become a performance >> issue, ever. > >The performance issue happens when application tries to call arc4random() >in the loop. That is not what we are talking about, we are talking about the calls in mktemp and similar. >> The solution however, is simple: Just have these hidden library calls >> to arc4random call a wrapper function that does the pid check. > >We can control our own arc4random() internal calls inside our own libs in >such way but can't control 3rd party libs or programs arc4random() calls >(consider ports). We are not obliged to control these calls. If their authors do something stupid, it's not our problem. You are, as usual, trying to vastly overengineer a minor problem that has a simple solution. Just have the FreeBSD library calls, call the wrapper function that does a pid check and be done with it. -- Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20 phk@FreeBSD.ORG | TCP/IP since RFC 956 FreeBSD committer | BSD since 4.3-tahoe Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?89740.1221643441>