Войти в систему

Home
    - Создать дневник
    - Написать в дневник
       - Подробный режим

LJ.Rossia.org
    - Новости сайта
    - Общие настройки
    - Sitemap
    - Оплата
    - ljr-fif

Редактировать...
    - Настройки
    - Список друзей
    - Дневник
    - Картинки
    - Пароль
    - Вид дневника

Сообщества

Настроить S2

Помощь
    - Забыли пароль?
    - FAQ
    - Тех. поддержка



Пишет nancygold ([info]nancygold)
@ 2024-06-10 13:35:00


Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend!  Next Entry
Настроение: amused
Entry tags:computing

MMU makes your CPU 10 times slower
Do you know than the use of MMU incurs 25% performance penalty on memory accesses and greatly complicates CPU designs? So if you throw away MMU, your 16-core CPU could as well be 64-core one. I.e. the actual performance penalty is like 600%!

That is in addition to the extremely expensive switching between the different processes, like asking your OS or GPU driver to do something, or sending message to another process. Also, if there is a real-time process required to run exactly N times per second, like your game's core server, it could be lagging behind a less important processes like some Windows update or telemetry service. So your PUBJ / Counter Strike ping will be lagging, because switching from the telemetry service to your game takes time, and even more time switching from your game to the network packet sending/receiving code. So the real overhead is more like 1000%

The sole reason MMU exists is to limit the technical progress and make you pay them more money, believing in the security theater.

Simpler and efficient no-MMU alternatives:
* Segment bounds checking (i.e. the segmentation fault in the old Unixes).
* Compile time verification (C# and Java code already gets it).

MMU was invented in 80ies when the memory was expensive and RAM was too small, so memory pages could be temporarily unloaded to a swap file. When memories got large enough, the crooks began promoting it as the essential security mechanism, preventing "hackers" from immediately gaining control over OS kernel (which has separate address space). But lets be honest all your important files are inside your Documents folder, and there is little benefit for the hacker to try breaking into kernel. The access scheme is there so you yourself, as user, will be unable to modify you kernel, while Apple/Microsoft/Google will be able to completely control what software you can run.

Zoomers got so detached from history and reality, that they don't know why MMUs were invented. The original Unix ran on a PDP-11, which differs from the pre-i286 x86 only in that it allowed setting segment sizes. That provided the only useful MMU feature at no MMU cost:
http://gunkies.org/wiki/PDP-11_Memory_Management



"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." - Benjamin Franklin



(Добавить комментарий)


(Анонимно)
2024-06-10 14:56 (ссылка)
> But lets be honest all your important files are inside your Documents folder

It never stops blowing my fucking mind that nobody in the "security" soydustry ever talks about this. Never! They just keep shoving a load of buzzwords down people's throats: UEFI2FASSLLGBTQ+

(Ответить) (Ветвь дискуссии)


(Анонимно)
2024-06-10 14:57 (ссылка)
Any "security expert" is a parasite of society who should face the wall.

(Ответить) (Уровень выше)


[info]nancygold
2024-06-10 15:03 (ссылка)
Exactly!

(Ответить) (Уровень выше)


(Анонимно)
2024-06-10 19:32 (ссылка)
where is better to keep a documents please describe sir

(Ответить) (Уровень выше) (Ветвь дискуссии)


[info]nancygold
2024-06-11 11:10 (ссылка)
Offline cold storage.
Preferably using typewriter to produce them.

(Ответить) (Уровень выше)


(Анонимно)
2024-06-10 14:58 (ссылка)
that's all fine and good, but lots of people still do stuff on machines which are vastly underspecified in terms of ram, and believe me, they prefer occasional stutters to programs crushing with OOM errors.

Especially relevant considering the number laptops that have 8 gb by default in the lowest spec, and even the mid spec (sold till this day), of which empty OS eats 2-4 GB, so the user can open like 4 heavy websites and begin swapping after that. Several years ago browsers learned how to unload tabs from memory, but same can't be said about desktop apps.

The alleged "25% performance penalty" is probably bullshit for today's cpus and today's memory, where most of the costs happen on cache misses anyway, and was only relevant for the earliest 386 era machines, especially considering the need for modern concurrency and the multi-levelness caches. I suspect that on modern cpus the paging stuff is almost free with translation lookaside buffer having the appropriate entries. With Java and C# you get 100% performance penalty and memory bloat penalty so that's not really an option either.

(Ответить)


(Анонимно)
2024-06-10 15:08 (ссылка)
>your important files are inside your Documents folder, and there is little benefit for the hacker to try breaking into kernel.

On everything but Windows (and maybe MacOS) you'd have to break into kernel to get access to the equivalent of "My Documents" folder. On Android and iOS I don't need to explain, and on Linux there is a shift towards containerized isolation with whitelist permission model (flatpak, snap), for desktop apps.

(Ответить) (Ветвь дискуссии)


[info]nancygold
2024-06-10 15:21 (ссылка)
Read: even bigger overhead and usability problems.

One reason I can't stand phones.

(Ответить) (Уровень выше) (Ветвь дискуссии)


(Анонимно)
2024-06-10 15:36 (ссылка)
But that overhead / "unusablity" bears fruits -- iphone exploits become so complex and involved that a full one is only accessible/affordable for nation states.

(Ответить) (Уровень выше) (Ветвь дискуссии)


[info]nancygold
2024-06-10 16:15 (ссылка)
>Security through obscurity

.

(Ответить) (Уровень выше) (Ветвь дискуссии)


(Анонимно)
2024-06-10 16:24 (ссылка)
>Security through obscurity

I don't think you know what it means. "security through obscurity is the practice of concealing the details or mechanisms of a system to enhance its security". There is no obscurity in aforementioned security architectures/approaches. "Difficult to find exploit" doesn't imply obscurity.

And what we have is better than no security at all. At least now you can insult most autistic nerds on the internet without fear of getting hacked. It wasn't the case in the 2000s.

(Ответить) (Уровень выше)


(Анонимно)
2024-06-10 15:47 (ссылка)
> you'd have to break into kernel to get access to the equivalent of "My Documents" folder

What the fuck are you even babbling about. Is this what a brain on soy looks like? Every program runs under your user account by default and has full access to your home - it can read, write, send whatever the fuck it wants over the net without asking you. Retard.

(Ответить) (Уровень выше) (Ветвь дискуссии)


(Анонимно)
2024-06-10 15:55 (ссылка)
found the "Retard" who is so retarded that he even failed at basic reading comprehension. "Full access to your home" on iOS? "Full access to your home" in the flatpak's bubblewrap ?

(Ответить) (Уровень выше) (Ветвь дискуссии)


(Анонимно)
2024-06-10 16:10 (ссылка)
Sorry, I only care about real computers - not the glowing buttplugs for the mentally disabled. Also, fuck flatpaks for their only ultimate purpose is turning every os into ios.

(Ответить) (Уровень выше) (Ветвь дискуссии)


(Анонимно)
2024-06-10 16:18 (ссылка)
Your answer should have been "Sorry, I can't read".

>their only ultimate purpose is turning every os into ios.

Their ultimate purpose is to provide level of security that was supposed to be implemented in the first place -- the user data oriented security. It doesn't turn it iOS in the sense in which normal people (who can read) understand it, i.e. with a giant corporation controlling what you can and can't execute on your hardware. There is no vendor lock in the Portal API or in flatpak -- you can run whatever you want (including from alternative repos or locally made).

(Ответить) (Уровень выше) (Ветвь дискуссии)


(Анонимно)
2024-06-10 16:48 (ссылка)
> Their ultimate purpose is to provide level of security

Sure - the same tune the soydevs sing every single time they work the probe up your arse.

> There is no vendor lock in the Portal API or in flatpak

yet

(Ответить) (Уровень выше) (Ветвь дискуссии)


(Анонимно)
2024-06-10 16:53 (ссылка)
"working the probe up your ass" is what you do every time you launch stuff you downloaded off the internet with full access to your file system, all to feel like a "real man" using "real computers". A true retard indeed, blinded by ideology, incapable of distinguishing proper advancements from the "soy stuff".

(Ответить) (Уровень выше) (Ветвь дискуссии)


(Анонимно)
2024-06-10 16:57 (ссылка)
The real solution is fine-grain access control, not this smartphone "apps" crap.

(Ответить) (Уровень выше) (Ветвь дискуссии)


(Анонимно)
2024-06-10 17:10 (ссылка)
That "real solution" (in the form of selinux) hasn't been working desktop apps for 2 decades plus. And desktop apps are indeed apps, and flatpak has permissions that are fine grained enough for their needs (network, camera, filesystem, etc) It's much more convenient to have a gui request for permission than to fiddle with text configs. And it's much more convenient for devs to be aware of the permission system and develop for it, rather than having third party fine grained permission layer broken with each update. You can't provide a workable alternative anyway.

(Ответить) (Уровень выше) (Ветвь дискуссии)


(Анонимно)
2024-06-10 17:47 (ссылка)
> gui request for permission

windows has ACL gui
unlike loonix where ACL is not even a thing, not out of the box

(Ответить) (Уровень выше)


(Анонимно)
2024-06-10 17:49 (ссылка)
> it's much more convenient for devs to be aware of the permission system and develop for it

AKA "you must allow me full access to your file system or I won't start at all"

(Ответить) (Уровень выше)


(Анонимно)
2024-06-10 15:28 (ссылка)
Что-то я сильно сомневаюсь, что какой-то поехавший кроссдрессер может оказаться умнее разработчиков процессоров.

(Ответить) (Ветвь дискуссии)


(Анонимно)
2024-06-10 16:02 (ссылка)
Садков любит приводить в пример разработчика процессоров, которая стала поехавшим кроссдрессером -- Roger Wilson. Собственно чтоб увлекаться разработкой процессоров, имхо нужно быть чуток поехавшим.

(Ответить) (Уровень выше) (Ветвь дискуссии)


(Анонимно)
2024-06-10 17:38 (ссылка)
>поехавшим

поеха-вшей

(Ответить) (Уровень выше)


[info]nancygold
2024-06-10 16:14 (ссылка)
Please throw away your IPhone/Xiaomi.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sophie_Wilson

(Ответить) (Уровень выше)


(Анонимно)
2024-06-10 22:57 (ссылка)
▒█▀▄▀█ ▒█▀▄▀█ ▒█░▒█   █▀▄▀█ █▀▀█ █░█ █▀▀ █▀▀   █░░█ █▀▀█ █░░█ █▀▀█   ▒█▀▀█ ▒█▀▀█ ▒█░▒█   ▄█░ █▀▀█
▒█▒█▒█ ▒█▒█▒█ ▒█░▒█   █░▀░█ █▄▄█ █▀▄ █▀▀ ▀▀█   █▄▄█ █░░█ █░░█ █▄▄▀   ▒█░░░ ▒█▄▄█ ▒█░▒█   ░█░ █▄▀█
▒█░░▒█ ▒█░░▒█ ░▀▄▄▀   ▀░░░▀ ▀░░▀ ▀░▀ ▀▀▀ ▀▀▀   ▄▄▄█ ▀▀▀▀ ░▀▀▀ ▀░▀▀   ▒█▄▄█ ▒█░░░ ░▀▄▄▀   ▄█▄ █▄▄█

▀▀█▀▀ ░▀░ █▀▄▀█ █▀▀ █▀▀   █▀▀ █░░ █▀▀█ █░░░█ █▀▀ █▀▀█
░░█░░ ▀█▀ █░▀░█ █▀▀ ▀▀█   ▀▀█ █░░ █░░█ █▄█▄█ █▀▀ █▄▄▀
░░▀░░ ▀▀▀ ▀░░░▀ ▀▀▀ ▀▀▀   ▀▀▀ ▀▀▀ ▀▀▀▀ ░▀░▀░ ▀▀▀ ▀░▀▀

(Ответить)