3 ms·

Not if your SSD delivers data at more than 2500MB/sec, as the one in the MacBook Air with M1 does. SHA256 calculation can probably be performed at that speed as

Not if your SSD delivers data at more than 2500MB/sec, as the one in the MacBook Air with M1 does. SHA256 calculation can probably be performed at that speed as well, thanks to dedicated silicon, so even a large 250MB binary (haven't seen those in any other use case than browsers) would be hashed in a tenth of a second. Not noticeable at all, if it's just once, at startup.

saagarjha 6y ago
This also sounds like something that could be cached if the file doesn’t change.
- codetrotter 6y ago
  I think there is no good way of doing that. Each time the user tries to run a x86_64 binary you’d have to actually checksum, or otherwise check the content of, the x86_64 binary to know if you have a translated version of it already. inode meta data such as timestamps are insufficient I think. They can be tampered with.
  - derefr 6y ago
    > inode meta data such as timestamps are insufficient I think. They can be tampered with. In macOS, there is a security-policy layer of some kind on top of xattrs, separate from the security-policy of the file itself. `com.apple.rootless` is an example of an xattr protected by this mechanism: users (even root) can't apply or remove `com.apple.rootless` from files on a filesystem mounted as the rootfs. With this mechanism, it'd likely be possible to give executable binaries an xattr containing the checksum, generated by Gatekeeper+Rosetta, that the user couldn't modify, while still being able to otherwise modify/delete the file. (And, presumably, modifying the file would automatically invalidate/remove the checksum xattr.)
  - saagarjha 6y ago
    The kernel is aware when files are modified.
    - anyfoo 6y ago
      That's not generally applicable, e.g. not if files are on an external drive, or worse, a network filesystem (where they can change even during use).
      - saagarjha 6y ago
        In which case falling back on a hash is fine.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]

saagarjha 6y ago

This also sounds like something that could be cached if the file doesn’t change.

codetrotter 6y ago
I think there is no good way of doing that. Each time the user tries to run a x86_64 binary you’d have to actually checksum, or otherwise check the content of, the x86_64 binary to know if you have a translated version of it already. inode meta data such as timestamps are insufficient I think. They can be tampered with.
- derefr 6y ago
  > inode meta data such as timestamps are insufficient I think. They can be tampered with. In macOS, there is a security-policy layer of some kind on top of xattrs, separate from the security-policy of the file itself. `com.apple.rootless` is an example of an xattr protected by this mechanism: users (even root) can't apply or remove `com.apple.rootless` from files on a filesystem mounted as the rootfs. With this mechanism, it'd likely be possible to give executable binaries an xattr containing the checksum, generated by Gatekeeper+Rosetta, that the user couldn't modify, while still being able to otherwise modify/delete the file. (And, presumably, modifying the file would automatically invalidate/remove the checksum xattr.)
- saagarjha 6y ago
  The kernel is aware when files are modified.
  - anyfoo 6y ago
    That's not generally applicable, e.g. not if files are on an external drive, or worse, a network filesystem (where they can change even during use).
    - saagarjha 6y ago
      In which case falling back on a hash is fine.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]