Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Mon, 29 Nov 1999 20:02:59 -0800 (PST)
From:      Kris Kennaway <kris@hub.freebsd.org>
To:        Matthew Dillon <dillon@apollo.backplane.com>
Cc:        Doug Barton <Doug@gorean.org>, Dan Moschuk <dan@FreeBSD.ORG>, arch@FreeBSD.ORG, audit@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject:   Re: cvs commit: src/sys/i386/conf files.i386 src/sys/kern kern_fork.c src/sys/libkern arc4random.c src/sys/sys libkern.h
Message-ID:  <Pine.BSF.4.21.9911291953130.65191-100000@hub.freebsd.org>
In-Reply-To: <199911300205.SAA13833@apollo.backplane.com>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, 29 Nov 1999, Matthew Dillon wrote:

> :There will probably end up being 20 or so randomized features in the
> :kernel, most of them trivial (~1 line) patches. As long as they're
> :sysctl'able, is it really necessary to have each of them optionable?
> 
>     What if we just has a general security randomization option that
>     applied to all of them, and then a sysctl to cover each of them?
>     That would cover my concerns.

Hmm. I think this would be an acceptable compromise provided it's in
GENERIC. Boot floppies and the anti-bloat brigade can leave it out if they
want to save that extra 1k :-)

The only thing is that in many cases we'd end up doing the equivalent of:

#ifdef RANDOM_SECURITY
i = arc4random();
#else
i = random();
#endif

Kris



To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-audit" in the body of the message




Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.4.21.9911291953130.65191-100000>