Overclock.net › Forums › Software, Programming and Coding › Other Software › Waterfox 53: 24 April [Firefox 64-Bit]
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Waterfox 53: 24 April [Firefox 64-Bit] - Page 663

post #6621 of 7308
me quote
Quote:
https://waterfoxproject.org/
ipvdevFTW johny • 3 days ago

means there is a security issue and a memory leak caused by the memory allocator unless alex knows what he is doing implementing an untested memory allocator in replace of jemalloc has a large security impact on the browser.

since its untested unlike the jemalloc firefox uses constantly being tested there are going to be huge security holes in the memory allocator he has used in waterfox possible zero days given its Intel Threaded Building Blocks memory allocator has not being tested on a xul runner application for use in a web browser.

why not fix the issue with webgl then use jemalloc its allow safer then implementing an untested memory allocator with a security impact that puts any waterfox user in great risk of losing there personal information or there computers been farmed via remote access.

true is this ? light shed please redface.gif
post #6622 of 7308
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by kevindd992002 View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrAlex View Post

No worries!
Yes looks like Intel TBB is too resource intensive. Going to try and get jemalloc to work. I believe the issue might be an issue with the D3D compiler in the windows 7 SDK...wish I could find an easy way to use Windows 8 SDK with vs2010!

Alright, that's all I need for now an acknowledgement of the problem biggrin.gif I know you'll be working on this and I don't have as single doubt you'll get to the bottom of it.

Cheers, I'll be trying my best!

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by malcomX View Post

me quote
Quote:
https://waterfoxproject.org/
ipvdevFTW johny • 3 days ago

means there is a security issue and a memory leak caused by the memory allocator unless alex knows what he is doing implementing an untested memory allocator in replace of jemalloc has a large security impact on the browser.

since its untested unlike the jemalloc firefox uses constantly being tested there are going to be huge security holes in the memory allocator he has used in waterfox possible zero days given its Intel Threaded Building Blocks memory allocator has not being tested on a xul runner application for use in a web browser.

why not fix the issue with webgl then use jemalloc its allow safer then implementing an untested memory allocator with a security impact that puts any waterfox user in great risk of losing there personal information or there computers been farmed via remote access.

true is this ? light shed please redface.gif

 

I've posted above about the memory allocator situation :) Intel TBB should be safe, it's endorsed by quite a large company! But it's too memory consumptive for the performance it give so I'm very keen on getting jemalloc to work!

    
CPUGraphicsRAMHard Drive
Intel Core i7-4650U Intel HD Graphics 5000 Samsung 8GB DDR3 Samsung 512GB SSD 
OS
Macintosh OS X "Yosemite" 
  hide details  
Reply
    
CPUGraphicsRAMHard Drive
Intel Core i7-4650U Intel HD Graphics 5000 Samsung 8GB DDR3 Samsung 512GB SSD 
OS
Macintosh OS X "Yosemite" 
  hide details  
Reply
post #6623 of 7308
Perhaps it's possible to tune Intel TBB's memory usage?

I don't see why most people complain about memory usage, I prefer a faster browser over memory usage in most cases. (most systems these days have more than 4GB of ram and are 64 bit so shouldn't have any problems with this)
Although I do agree that reducing memory usage can be a good thing, depending on how the reduction is made possible.

Why not upgrade to visual studio 2013, and the latest Intel 2015 compiler?
If you need a license for them, send me a PM smile.gif
post #6624 of 7308
Quote:
Originally Posted by gijs007 View Post

Perhaps it's possible to tune Intel TBB's memory usage?

I don't see why most people complain about memory usage, I prefer a faster browser over memory usage in most cases. (most systems these days have more than 4GB of ram and are 64 bit so shouldn't have any problems with this)
Although I do agree that reducing memory usage can be a good thing, depending on how the reduction is made possible.

This is furthest from the truth, even Steam's statistics show that most computers do not have more than 4GB RAM and that's supposed to be the more educated and more IT-invested part of the population. For example, dual core computers are in far majority still.
post #6625 of 7308
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrAlex View Post

Cheers, I'll be trying my best!


I've posted above about the memory allocator situation smile.gif Intel TBB should be safe, it's endorsed by quite a large company! But it's too memory consumptive for the performance it give so I'm very keen on getting jemalloc to work!
Quote:
Intel Threaded Building Blocks memory allocator has not being tested on a xul runner application for use in a web browser.

intel test do they ?
post #6626 of 7308
Quote:
Originally Posted by Panwaffles View Post

This is furthest from the truth, even Steam's statistics show that most computers do not have more than 4GB RAM and that's supposed to be the more educated and more IT-invested part of the population. For example, dual core computers are in far majority still.

http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey

8 GB most thumb.gif


Less than 512 MB
0.01%
0.00%

512 Mb to 999 MB
0.21%
-0.01%

1 GB
1.99%
-0.10%

2 GB
9.97%
-0.19%

3 GB
13.82%
-0.20%

4 GB
21.63%
-0.10%

5 GB
1.36%
-0.03%

6 GB
5.94%
-0.10%

7 GB
2.44%
+0.05%

8 GB
29.39%
+0.31%

9 GB
0.07%
0.00%

10 GB
0.29%
0.00%

11 GB
0.11%
0.00%

12 GB and higher
12.75%
+0.37%
post #6627 of 7308
Check that specific survey again (the whole thing) and you'll realize why it's completely off.

EDIT: Can't find the data from previous surveys and even if the January one wasn't corrupted, it still shows that the most expensive part of the commercial PC population (a niche market) is still barely outweighing 4GB, so overall it would still be either equal or less.
Edited by Panwaffles - 2/7/15 at 4:34am
post #6628 of 7308
When is new version coming?
post #6629 of 7308
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by gijs007 View Post

Perhaps it's possible to tune Intel TBB's memory usage?

I don't see why most people complain about memory usage, I prefer a faster browser over memory usage in most cases. (most systems these days have more than 4GB of ram and are 64 bit so shouldn't have any problems with this)
Although I do agree that reducing memory usage can be a good thing, depending on how the reduction is made possible.

Why not upgrade to visual studio 2013, and the latest Intel 2015 compiler?
If you need a license for them, send me a PM smile.gif

 

Unfortunately not. What it does is overrides the default C memory allocation functions with its own. Yes well the problem is too much memory leads to out of memory performance issues which makes things unusable!

 

The latest versions don't compile well at all unfortunately! Thanks for the offer, it hasn't expired yet :thumbsups

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Panwaffles View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by gijs007 View Post

Perhaps it's possible to tune Intel TBB's memory usage?

I don't see why most people complain about memory usage, I prefer a faster browser over memory usage in most cases. (most systems these days have more than 4GB of ram and are 64 bit so shouldn't have any problems with this)
Although I do agree that reducing memory usage can be a good thing, depending on how the reduction is made possible.

This is furthest from the truth, even Steam's statistics show that most computers do not have more than 4GB RAM and that's supposed to be the more educated and more IT-invested part of the population. For example, dual core computers are in far majority still.

 

I believe enthusiasts and gamers will have on average about 4GB of RAM, whereas the average Joe will have 2GB. 8GB is now becoming the norm though :)

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by malcomX View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrAlex View Post

Cheers, I'll be trying my best!


I've posted above about the memory allocator situation smile.gif Intel TBB should be safe, it's endorsed by quite a large company! But it's too memory consumptive for the performance it give so I'm very keen on getting jemalloc to work!
Quote:
Intel Threaded Building Blocks memory allocator has not being tested on a xul runner application for use in a web browser.

intel test do they ?

 

No, but it's understanding how the memory allocator works and if the application will benefit from it. It doesn't modify any code, since what is does is overrides the default memory functions with its own.

    
CPUGraphicsRAMHard Drive
Intel Core i7-4650U Intel HD Graphics 5000 Samsung 8GB DDR3 Samsung 512GB SSD 
OS
Macintosh OS X "Yosemite" 
  hide details  
Reply
    
CPUGraphicsRAMHard Drive
Intel Core i7-4650U Intel HD Graphics 5000 Samsung 8GB DDR3 Samsung 512GB SSD 
OS
Macintosh OS X "Yosemite" 
  hide details  
Reply
post #6630 of 7308
A Google search didn't resolve my issue, so I figured I'd come ask the people who use it everyday.

I just installed Waterfox onto a new computer, and audio will not play. It plays through Chrome however. I did the usual check the mixer step to make sure the program wasn't muted, and Waterfox isn't even listed as a program there.

How can I get Waterfox to play sound / appear on the mixer? Thanks!
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Other Software
Overclock.net › Forums › Software, Programming and Coding › Other Software › Waterfox 53: 24 April [Firefox 64-Bit]