On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 01:58:34PM +0100, Otto Moerbeek wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 01:54:50PM +0100, Otto Moerbeek wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 07:44:31AM -0500, Ted Unangst wrote:
> >
> > > On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 3:58 AM, Otto Moerbeek wrote:
> > > >> apart from the random page
On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 09:58:19AM +0100, Otto Moerbeek wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 02, 2009 at 10:38:10AM +0100, Otto Moerbeek wrote:
> > [A]part from the random page addresses obtained form mmap(2) malloc(3)
> > itself also randomizes cache en chunk operations. It uses a nibble of
> > randomness per cal
> > On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 3:58 AM, Otto Moerbeek wrote:
> > >> apart from the random page addresses obtained form mmap(2) malloc(3)
> > >> itself also randomizes cache en chunk operations. It uses a nibble of
> > >> randomness per call, so optimize that to not waste half the random
> > >> bits.
On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 01:54:50PM +0100, Otto Moerbeek wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 07:44:31AM -0500, Ted Unangst wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 3:58 AM, Otto Moerbeek wrote:
> > >> apart from the random page addresses obtained form mmap(2) malloc(3)
> > >> itself also randomizes cach
On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 07:44:31AM -0500, Ted Unangst wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 3:58 AM, Otto Moerbeek wrote:
> >> apart from the random page addresses obtained form mmap(2) malloc(3)
> >> itself also randomizes cache en chunk operations. It uses a nibble of
> >> randomness per call, so op
On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 3:58 AM, Otto Moerbeek wrote:
>> apart from the random page addresses obtained form mmap(2) malloc(3)
>> itself also randomizes cache en chunk operations. It uses a nibble of
>> randomness per call, so optimize that to not waste half the random
>> bits.
>>
>> Please test, s
On Wed, Dec 02, 2009 at 10:38:10AM +0100, Otto Moerbeek wrote:
> Hi,
>
> apart from the random page addresses obtained form mmap(2) malloc(3)
> itself also randomizes cache en chunk operations. It uses a nibble of
> randomness per call, so optimize that to not waste half the random
> bits.
>
>
On Wed, Dec 02, 2009 at 02:44:21PM +0100, Otto Moerbeek wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 02, 2009 at 02:25:57PM +0100, Otto Moerbeek wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Dec 02, 2009 at 01:09:02PM +, Michael Shalayeff wrote:
> >
> > > On Wed, Dec 02, 2009 at 10:38:10AM +0100, Otto Moerbeek wrote:
> > > > Hi,
> > > re
>
On Wed, Dec 02, 2009 at 02:25:57PM +0100, Otto Moerbeek wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 02, 2009 at 01:09:02PM +, Michael Shalayeff wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Dec 02, 2009 at 10:38:10AM +0100, Otto Moerbeek wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > re
> >
> > > apart from the random page addresses obtained form mmap(2) malloc(3)
On Wed, Dec 02, 2009 at 02:25:57PM +0100, Otto Moerbeek wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 02, 2009 at 01:09:02PM +, Michael Shalayeff wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Dec 02, 2009 at 10:38:10AM +0100, Otto Moerbeek wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > re
> >
> > > apart from the random page addresses obtained form mmap(2) malloc(3)
On Wed, Dec 02, 2009 at 01:09:02PM +, Michael Shalayeff wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 02, 2009 at 10:38:10AM +0100, Otto Moerbeek wrote:
> > Hi,
> re
>
> > apart from the random page addresses obtained form mmap(2) malloc(3)
> > itself also randomizes cache en chunk operations. It uses a nibble of
> >
On Wed, Dec 02, 2009 at 10:38:10AM +0100, Otto Moerbeek wrote:
> Hi,
re
> apart from the random page addresses obtained form mmap(2) malloc(3)
> itself also randomizes cache en chunk operations. It uses a nibble of
> randomness per call, so optimize that to not waste half the random
> bits.
arc4
Hi,
apart from the random page addresses obtained form mmap(2) malloc(3)
itself also randomizes cache en chunk operations. It uses a nibble of
randomness per call, so optimize that to not waste half the random
bits.
Please test, should be a bit faster.
-Otto
Index: malloc.c
===
13 matches
Mail list logo