| |||||||||||||
Random numbers for ASLRRandom numbers for ASLRPosted May 14, 2009 21:47 UTC (Thu) by nix (subscriber, #2304)In reply to: Random numbers for ASLR by wahern Parent article: Random numbers for ASLR
There should be little doubt that cryptographically strong PRNGs exist which are just as performant as whatever ridiculous MD4 hack is being used now. Clearly there are cryptographers falling over themselves to try provide the code to Linus & Co.; he's just not hearing it.If so, they're not doing it in that thread. Matt presented a PRNG that was twice as slow as the existing (crappy but cheap) MD4 one, to be used in time-critical contexts like process execution. That's not going to fly, given that that path has attention paid to every last cycle.
(Log in to post comments)
Random numbers for ASLR Posted May 15, 2009 11:55 UTC (Fri) by man_ls (subscriber, #15091) [Link] Linus wanted to speak about a small % instead of a big factor. Just from reading the article Ingo provided the answer: looking at the numbers in context we are talking about a 1% performance hit in fork(). If your system is completely CPU-bound and fork() takes half the CPU then your task will take 0.5% more to execute (seven extra minutes every day). I think it is quite acceptable for even a small increase in security.
|
|||||||||||||