lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Message-ID: <3F9C949C.3010405@hutley.net> From: brett at hutley.net (Brett Hutley) Subject: Coding securely, was Linux (in)security Paul Schmehl wrote: *snip* > You complain that the code would be really slowed down if consistent and > complete error checking were done. I wonder if anyone has ever really > tried to write code that way and then tested it to see if it really > *did* slow down the process? Or if this is just another one of those > "truisms" in computing that's never really been put to the test? Yup. I work on large distributed systems for financial risk management processing. We have some very tight calculation loops with preallocated buffers because we can't afford to do any unnecessary stuff in these loops. Because they are buried deep in the calculation engine we don't need to worry about validating the input. An unnecessary piece of code here makes the difference between the job taking 1 hour to process or 10 hours. There are some circumstances where tight code is essential. Of course in MOST systems the speed of execution is not that critical. Cheers, Brett -- Brett Hutley [MAppFin,CISSP,SANS GCIH] mailto:brett@...ley.net http://hutley.net/brett
Powered by blists - more mailing lists