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

Re: Rep:Re: Rep:Re: Rep:Re: Rep:Re: [f-cpu] TLB right + resume



> > > > 4- diseable any possiblity of buffer overflow.

> > >>> This is the problem number one of the computer security, if it
> > became impossible to do it, you see what reputation could have the
> > f-cpu...
 
> If there was an easy way to do this, then it would already be used
> by everybody.

Not sure, it help software society to sell new release ;-)
 
> >>>And windows is the best OS because everybody use it ? :-/ Most of
> the cpu of workstation have an old ISA, and maybe i could have some new
> idea some times...
 
> Unfortunately, everybody sticks with C and the select() exploit
> is possible. This could have been avoided by using ADA or JAVA.
> Java sux but at least, strongly typed langages are good at avoiding
> silly errors like this.

> >>>Client have always right ! Client (end user) use C for many
> reasons, so must provide a good way to use C ! Nothing to add more.
> What do you mean by select() exploit ?

I think that it was the system call where the bug was in OpenBSD.

> Buffer overflows are another problems and it depends a lot on
> the coder and the langage. The CPU can't do much on this matter,
> particularly if a (dumb) coder wants to use a (dumb) langage.

I agree that C is not the best langage, but in a lot of case it's the most 
usefull.

> >>> Hummm ! I don't think that the coder of mozilla,etc ... are so
> dumb !
 
> I think i'll simply make the TLB user-configurable
> until F-CPU rev. 1 is frozen. This way, people could explore
> the necessary/useless features. This is the easiest way to solve
> the TLB problems because everybody wants something different.

> >>> You mean  : just puting bits in tlb and parameter their meaning ?
> How could you verify for read, write, instruction fetch, load&store in
> tagged region in a configurable way ? Do we implement all of this ?

I didn't understand your idea. Can you explain this a little bit more ?

> >>>physical failure !!! You want to be fault tolerant. What a news !
> But as i said in the previous mail, that a false problem !

> maybe the solution lies somewhere else, not in the TLBs.

> >>> Why ? Where are your arguments ?
We have 2 points of security in F-CPU : TLB and SR. If he think it's not in 
TLB, he certainly think about SR, but I don't see why. Or perhaps the truth is 
somewhere else ;-)

Cedric
*************************************************************
To unsubscribe, send an e-mail to majordomo@seul.org with
unsubscribe f-cpu       in the body. http://f-cpu.seul.org/