News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Proving that Android’s, Java’s and Python’s sorting algor... by nightcracker on Tuesday February 24, 2015 @11:34AM (#9101655)
What you fail to realize is that this attack is simply an academic proof that shows the libc++ implementation is broken and can have quadratic performance. This is a bug, because the C++ standard mandates a worst case of O(n log n).

What you also don't seem to realize is that this attack merely uses a comparison function to find the worst case. Once the worst case is found you can feed this input to any program using libc++'s std::sort, without comparison function, and trigger the worst case.

So no, this is not frivolous at all.

Re:Proving that Android’s, Java’s and Python’s sorting algor... by thaumasiotes on Tuesday February 24, 2015 @06:50PM (#9104370)
> What you also don't seem to realize is that this attack merely uses a comparison function to find the worst case. Once the worst case is found you can feed this input to any program using libc++'s std::sort, without comparison function, and trigger the worst case.

This is true iff pivots are selected deterministically. In which case, why did you post it as a response to "how can an adversary force quadratic behavior when pivots are chosen randomly?"

Re:Proving that Android’s, Java’s and Python’s sorting algor... by tveita on Tuesday February 24, 2015 @12:12PM (#9101955)
> This is a bug, because the C++ standard mandates a worst case of O(n log n).

Specifically, this is a requirement in C++11. Earlier C++ standards only require it to be average-case O(n log n).