:Hi,
:
:At 1:28 pm -0400 20/7/99, Kelly Yancey wrote:
:>[...]
:> On recent thought though, I seem to recall having read in the 4.4BSD
:>Daemon book that having the kernel zero memory is not the preferred
:>practice, but present because when they tried to stop many progrems dies
:>which assumed memory was initialized to zero.
:
:Handing out unzeroed memory is a potential security hole.
:
:--
:Bob Bishop (0118) 977 4017 international code +44 118
:[EMAIL PROTECTED] fax (0118) 989 4254 between 0800 and 1800 UK
It should also be noted that unless your system is entirely cpu-bound,
there is no cost to the kernel to zero memory because it pre-zero's
pages in its idle loop.
-Matt
Matthew Dillon
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
- Re: Overcommit and calloc() Dag-Erling Smorgrav
- Re: Overcommit and calloc() John-Mark Gurney
- Re: Overcommit and calloc(... Dag-Erling Smorgrav
- Re: Overcommit and calloc() Ville-Pertti Keinonen
- Re: Overcommit and calloc() Peter Dufault
- RE: Overcommit and calloc() Charles Randall
- Re: RE: Overcommit and calloc() Matthew Dillon
- RE: Overcommit and calloc() Kelly Yancey
- RE: Overcommit and calloc() David Wolfskill
- RE: Overcommit and calloc() Bob Bishop
- Re: RE: Overcommit and calloc() Matthew Dillon
- Re: RE: Overcommit and calloc() Bob Bishop
- Re: RE: Overcommit and calloc() Matthew Dillon
- Re: RE: Overcommit and calloc() Matthew Dillon
- RE: RE: Overcommit and calloc() Kelly Yancey

