[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Introducing security hardening features for Lenny



On Tue, Jan 29, 2008 at 10:31:48PM +0000, Moritz Muehlenhoff wrote:
> There are certainly performance trade-offs involved and the final
> selection of features will depend on the testing of the respective
> maintainers (testing should be eased by hardening-wrapper).

  I understand. To be fair, I'm worried in the implications of the SSP,
FORTITY_SOURCES and PIE proposals. Others looks fine, but those three
may have very important performance issues embedded.

* SSP has a cost proportional to the number of calls an application
  performs (If I'm correct), which in CPU intensive tasks may become an
  issue.
* FORTITY_SOURCES=2 checks memcpy and memmove, though other functions it
  checks should just not be used and applications beeing too slow
  because of them should just be shot down.
* PIE is just IMHO not an option on x86 :/

  Though probably someone should come up with some benchmarks. The usual
culprits (multimedia libraries, html renderers, xml processors, …) all
provide easily deployed bench, and before we go any further I'd like to
see some numbers.

  If it's say less than a percent, okay I'm all for it. If we have more
than 10% performance losses because of that, then we implicitely ask our
users to sometimes buy faster machines (I know many people having
installations where their multimedia player eats 80% CPU while decoding
a film because they run it on old hardware, we may just kill this kind
of use, and I would be sorry).

-- 
·O·  Pierre Habouzit
··O                                                madcoder@debian.org
OOO                                                http://www.madism.org

Attachment: pgpvhNL1CbvSb.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: