Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2005 12:10:17 +0100 From: Ulrich Spoerlein <q@galgenberg.net> To: Jason Evans <jasone@canonware.com> Cc: current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: New libc malloc patch Message-ID: <20051130111017.GA67032@galgenberg.net> In-Reply-To: <B6653214-2181-4342-854D-323979D23EE8@canonware.com> References: <B6653214-2181-4342-854D-323979D23EE8@canonware.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--8t9RHnE3ZwKMSgU+ Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Jason Evans wrote: > * The virtual memory size of processes, as reported in the SIZE field by = top, will appear=20 > astronomical for almost all processes (32+ MB). This is expected; it is = merely an artifact=20 > of using large mmap()ed regions rather than sbrk(). Hi, I just read that mmap() part and have to wonder: Is it possible to introduce something like the guard pages that OpenBSD has implemented? I'd love to try this out and see the dozens of applications that fail due to off-by-one bugs. If the security features of OpenBSDs new malloc() could be implemented as new MALLOC_OPTIONS directives, that would be fantastic! Ulrich Spoerlein --=20 PGP Key ID: F0DB9F44 Encrypted mail welcome! Fingerprint: F1CE D062 0CA9 ADE3 349B 2FE8 980A C6B5 F0DB 9F44 Ok, which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn." didn't you understand? --8t9RHnE3ZwKMSgU+ Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQFDjYiZmArGtfDbn0QRAvEPAJ4kfFgmQBnuWjcgjC0Op5NiJRu2mACg+zfa pGxYs3bCVctufbhm56td4hk= =kgdH -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --8t9RHnE3ZwKMSgU+--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20051130111017.GA67032>