These are two good questions Robert. Both points are nuanced and merit more discussion.
1. Re: 64 bit as a bandaid for OOM. This is an alternate viewpoint that a few folks advanced for discussion. I assumed this meant (at the least) PCs with > 4GB physical memory. I'm not sure if this applies to virtual memory. In addition to understanding the exact scenarios this might mitigate, ideally we'd have crashstats data to help us understand how big each of those scenarios is. 2. Re: Security. As Ryan said, it's about high-entropy ASLR in Windows 64 bit. I have a neophyte's understanding of JIT Sprays, this helped: http://blog.cdleary.com/2011/08/understanding-jit-spray/. Again, it would be nice to understand the magnitude of this particular threat. On Thursday, June 5, 2014 11:34:21 AM UTC-4, J. Ryan Stinnett wrote: > On Thu, Jun 5, 2014 at 10:03 AM, Robert Kaiser wrote: > > >> It's also security boost for 64 bit users. > > > > > > > > > Could someone please explain why you and Google claim 64bit to be more > > > secure? This is a new argument to me and I wonder what's behind it. > > > > As stated in Google's announcement[1], the main security improvement > > is (better) address space layout randomization. Even though that > > exists in 32 bit too, it's more effective with 64 bit since the VM > > space is so much larger. Looks like Windows has a specific "high > > entropy"[2] version that's 64 bit only. > > > > [1]: > http://blog.chromium.org/2014/06/try-out-new-64-bit-windows-canary-and.html > > [2]: > http://blogs.technet.com/b/srd/archive/2013/12/11/software-defense-mitigating-common-exploitation-techniques.aspx > > > > - Ryan _______________________________________________ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
