Re: [2.0] Plans for next beta version (1.9.18/1.9.19)
"Gilles Espinasse" <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.security.ipcop.devel |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <02e101cbe67b$49cf0120$f9b5a8c0@pii350> |
----- Original Message ----- From: "Harry Goldschmitt" <[email protected]> To: "Gilles Espinasse" <[email protected]> Sent: Saturday, March 12, 2011 11:58 PM Subject: Re: [IPCop-devel] [2.0] Plans for next beta version (1.9.18/1.9.19) > On 3/7/11 11:02 PM, Gilles Espinasse wrote: > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Olaf Westrik"<weizen_42-Yz37vSk3/[email protected]> > > To:<[email protected]> > > Sent: Monday, March 07, 2011 6:38 PM > > Subject: Re: [IPCop-devel] [2.0] Plans for next beta version (1.9.18/1.9.19) > > > > > >> Let's try again ... > >> > >> > >> I am fairly happy with the state we are in. Recent testresults look OK, > >> some week ago I started to regularly build the testuites, results are > >> here: http://ipcop-addons.ath.cx/ipcop/testresults/ > >> > >> If nothing extremely important comes up, I would like to release the > >> next beta version this month, somewhere around 27-30 March. > >> Feel free to commit anything you have got till March 26th. > >> > >> Should there be any problems with the floppy install, I wil just make a > >> note about that in the release notes. Time to spend our cycles elsewhere. > >> > >> > >> Olaf > >> > > schedule is fine for me. > > I am actually trying to run some benchmark to figure what the difference > > with -fstack-protector-all is. > > I compiled php and will try to run phoronix test suite. > > > > I think we should offer a x86_64 kernel and userspace (build64 option under > > that machine?). > > That will support more memory than 4 GB, support hardware NX, relax the > > register number constraint on x86 32 bits (hardening with pie use one > > register and x86 arch has not that much). > > > > Gilles > I've had some experience with Linux 64 bit kernels, not all good. The > pae kernels support up to 64 GB. I have no experience using more than 4 GB. What was the issue with 64-bits kernels? I was thinking a 64 bits kernel is better than PAE when there is much memory. In this interview http://www.itwire.com/opinion-and-analysis/open-sauce/44975-linus-torvalds-looking-back-looking-forward?start=2 Linus say: "there's no way to ever really get the Intel PAE model to work perfectly" Later on page 5 ..." The whole "support memory past the 4GB mark on a 32-bit architecture" thing is something I absolutely hate. It impacted _everything_. It was really painful, and people trying to run 32-bit x86 processors with 32GB of memory was just a total disaster. We could do it, but it was a memory management nightmare. And I was really unhappy with how Intel seemed to drag their feet on the whole 64-bit side, pushing instead their crazy and fundamentally flawed Itanium architecture. Then AMD came around with x86-64, and there was finally light at the end of a long, dark, nasty tunnel. "... Gilles ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Colocation vs. Managed Hosting A question and answer guide to determining the best fit for your organization - today and in the future. http://p.sf.net/sfu/internap-sfd2d