This doesn't fix the problem. It makes the chances of exploitation a bit smaller, on a "per-try" basis.
Back in the old days, some daemons or setuid programs would do insecure things with /tmp. So the hacker would make a program:
target = "/tmp/somefile";
while (1) {
unlink (target);
link ("/etc/passwd", target);
unlink (target);
link ("/tmp/myfile", target);
}
The daemon would check access permissions of the "target", hopefully after the last line in the loop, then open and write the target, hopefully after the second line inside the loop. Leave this running, trigger the target app, and you get the target app to write somewhere where it shouldn't (in this case /etc/passwd. Get it to add "\nmyroot::0:0::::\n" to make the system allow you to login as root without a password....)
The same applies to this stack/compiler randomization tricks: The hacker first tries at a slow pace, but instead of hacking your system, fails to get in because he's crashing your service deamon. You notice your service going down every day or so. Buggy software. Stupid randomization! No time to fix, and you make the daemon restart automatically. And bingo! Now the hacker can try thousands of times!
In cryptography, care has been taken that you can't figure out one of the "bits" of the key by a simple search. So that the exponential search (find the key among 2^256 possible keys) does not become "256 times: find bit n". To guarantee that no "bit leaking" will happen in a buggy program is very, very difficult: The designers of the program don't know where the bug is, the compiler doesn't know where the bug is, but the attacker does!
So... if this goes mainstream, the hackers will find a way to extract little bits of knowledge of the randomization, determine what the actual randomization was, and then attack the service as usual.
Of course, there will be cases where say: the time for the attack is increased beyond the attack-detection-time. So instead of the attack being succesful, the attack might be detected and averted.
Anyway, I much rather have something that actually WORKS instead of "has a chance of working". But maybe that's just me.