[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20130821162603.GB4369@domone.kolej.mff.cuni.cz>
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2013 18:26:03 +0200
From: Ondřej Bílka <neleai@...nam.cz>
To: Stephen Röttger <stephen.roettger@...il.com>
Cc: oss-security@...ts.openwall.com, gcc@....gnu.org
Subject: Re: PoC: Function Pointer Protection in C Programs
On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 04:43:13PM +0200, Stephen Röttger wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> I'd like to present you my master's thesis "Malicious Code Execution
> Prevention through Function Pointer Protection" [0] and its
> proof-of-concept implementation [1] for the gcc+glibc and would
> appreciate some feedback.
>
>
> Performance:
> Though my PoC implementation is not free of bugs, I was able to compile
> an nginx webserver and have it serve static websites, which I used for a
> performance evaluation. On my test system, the number of requests per
> second that the nginx could was reduced to 96% compared to a nginx
> without the scheme. Handling of a single request included 71 function
> pointer calls in this case. (More details can be found in my thesis [0])
>
What is performance impact for program that just qsorts big array? It
looks like worst case scenario for me.
Well now when gcc-4.7 can resolve function pointers it is possible to
create header to inline comparison but still.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Please check out the
Open Source Software Security Wiki, which is counterpart to this
mailing list.
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
