From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Richard Stallman Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: When should ralloc.c be used? Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2016 15:13:19 -0400 Message-ID: References: <83h98nidvd.fsf@gnu.org> <87eg3rvtsf.fsf@users.sourceforge.net> <83k2dihpm9.fsf@gnu.org> <8760p2wzgj.fsf@users.sourceforge.net> <838ttyhhzu.fsf@gnu.org> <871szqwu51.fsf@users.sourceforge.net> <831szqhbc2.fsf@gnu.org> <87d1itt79z.fsf_-_@users.sourceforge.net> <7baa18d4-2b09-caa8-005e-29008a383ad1@cs.ucla.edu> <83mvhwrgd5.fsf@gnu.org> <8539f38f-9a11-44c3-4de7-bb974c96206c@cs.ucla.edu> <83d1iq5ib1.fsf@gnu.org> <83r3753c8j.fsf@gnu.org> <83r374wh32.fsf@gnu.org> <83mvhruyrh.fsf@gnu.org> Reply-To: rms@gnu.org NNTP-Posting-Host: blaine.gmane.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=Utf-8 X-Trace: blaine.gmane.org 1477682030 18640 195.159.176.226 (28 Oct 2016 19:13:50 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2016 19:13:50 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Stefan Monnier Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Fri Oct 28 21:13:46 2016 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by blaine.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1c0Car-0002qo-Nr for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 28 Oct 2016 21:13:33 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:51398 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1c0Cau-0004fU-8v for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 28 Oct 2016 15:13:36 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:37040) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1c0Caj-0004dr-Cm for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 28 Oct 2016 15:13:26 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1c0Cai-0005Nx-HR for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 28 Oct 2016 15:13:25 -0400 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::e]:39001) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1c0Cad-0005Km-Hi; Fri, 28 Oct 2016 15:13:19 -0400 Original-Received: from rms by fencepost.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1c0Cad-0005SH-05; Fri, 28 Oct 2016 15:13:19 -0400 In-reply-to: (message from Stefan Monnier on Fri, 28 Oct 2016 08:57:24 -0400) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Received-From: 2001:4830:134:3::e X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.21 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "Emacs-devel" Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:208952 Archived-At: [[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider ]]] [[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies, ]]] [[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]] > > I think that is an exaggeration. They got rid of ONE set of hooks for > > specific practical reasons. Maybe we can design a different set of > > hooks which do the job and which are not a problem for them to > > support. > While that is true, I think there is very little motivation to go down > that road even in Emacs's side: this glibc-malloc "issue" is just one > more nail in the unexec coffin, so even if we can find a way back we'd > still be stuck with the problem of doing unexec with address > randomization (for example), and maintenance of unexec (which has proved I just did 'time temacs -batch -l loadup'. It took over 18 seconds. We have a long way to go to make that fast enough. Perhaps what we need is to dump that data verbatim in a format chosen by us, then relocate all the pointers if necessary. -- Dr Richard Stallman President, Free Software Foundation (gnu.org, fsf.org) Internet Hall-of-Famer (internethalloffame.org) Skype: No way! See stallman.org/skype.html.