Re: Compiler alternatives to no-exec (was Re: non exec stack...)

Kragen (kragen@pobox.com)
Fri, 7 Aug 1998 10:34:09 -0400 (EDT)

On 7 Aug 1998, David Wragg wrote:
> Meelis Roos <mroos@tartu.cyber.ee> writes:
> > There was a discussion on bugtraq obout bounds checking. That made
> > programs _very_ slow (AFAIR about 20 times slower sometimes). C is
> > not designed to be bounds checking - that's why it's so hard.

This is somewhat misleading. Naive implementations do impose a
factor-of-20 overhead. The current implementations in gcc range from
50%-80% overhead to a little more than 100%.

> Yet if people can't learn to avoid the relevant bugs when they
> program, then it seems to me that ad hoc fixes should be in the
> language implementation rather than the kernel.

Yes. And people can't.

Kragen

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.altern.org/andrebalsa/doc/lkml-faq.html