Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2001 07:07:16 -0800 From: Brooks Davis <brooks@one-eyed-alien.net> To: Oleg Cherkasov <Oleg.Cherkasov@mail.com> Cc: freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: philosophical question... Message-ID: <20011203070716.A21558@Odin.AC.HMC.Edu> In-Reply-To: <01120314575508.10748@vesna>; from Oleg.Cherkasov@mail.com on Mon, Dec 03, 2001 at 02:57:55PM %2B0100 References: <Pine.NEB.3.96L.1011203074251.94074Q-100000@fledge.watson.org> <01120314575508.10748@vesna>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--OgqxwSJOaUobr8KG Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Mon, Dec 03, 2001 at 02:57:55PM +0100, Oleg Cherkasov wrote: >=20 > Yes, you are right, it is better to keep it out of the kernel. But excep= t=20 > having /etc/malloc.conf, is it better to have a shell variable MEMORY_RAN= DOM=20 > or MALLOC_CONF? In this case just 'weak' services can be run with that= =20 > option on. We still do not know how will it affect performance ... becau= se=20 > it will be additional cycles during memory allocation for every single=20 > *alloc() call. Some software could be very aggressive using malloc(), wh= o=20 > knows. The MALLOC_OPTIONS variable would allow this. Please RFTM before posting. -- Brooks --=20 Any statement of the form "X is the one, true Y" is FALSE. PGP fingerprint 655D 519C 26A7 82E7 2529 9BF0 5D8E 8BE9 F238 1AD4 --OgqxwSJOaUobr8KG Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iD8DBQE8C5UjXY6L6fI4GtQRAr9zAKCsPiKk2OzrpsGFeDJnr6+Kwmx4IgCfSygm 3tedXL84PtuFpi9Ahpy3IRc= =9/px -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --OgqxwSJOaUobr8KG-- To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-security" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20011203070716.A21558>