On Thu, 27 Jan 2005, John Richard Moser wrote: > Your patch 5/6 for mmap rand is also small. 1M is trivial, though I'd > imagine mmap() rand would pose a bit more confusion in some cases at > least, even for small ranges. > Still, this is a joke, like OpenBSD's stackgap.
Also, besides security implications of stack randomization, there is one more aspect that should not be forgotten - stack randomization (even for quite small range) could be useful to distribute a pressure on cache (which may not be fully associative in all cases), so if everyone runs with stack on the same address, it could impose quite noticeable stress on some cachelines (those representing stack addresses), while other will be idling unused. I thought that this was the original purpose of the "stack randomization" which is shipped for example by RedHat kernels, as the randomization is quite small and easy to bruteforce, so it can't serve too much as a buffer overflow protection. -- JiKos. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
