Re: [patch 0/5] Support for sanitization flag in low-level page allocator

["Larry H." <research@subreption.com>]

On 15:16 Sun 31 May     , Pekka Enberg wrote:
> On Sun, May 31, 2009 at 2:58 PM, Larry H. <research@subreption.com> wrote:
> > Thanks for coming to the conclusion that unconditional memory
> > sanitization is the correct approach.
> >
> > I thought this had been stated numerous times before in this thread. Are
> > you serious about your responses or you are just clowning around? It's
> > amusing, I give you that much.
> 
> So is this the same Larry that was able to have a productive and civil
> discussion on #mm on IRC where he wanted me to ACK his patches? Or did
> his evil identical twin take over the keyboard?

I was merely making sure what your intentions were regarding the
patches. And it's clear you have utter disregard for them, and security
as a whole. In your idea of the world 'there are no secrets'.

Good luck with that.

> But anyway, enough is enough, and I really am not interested in this
> discussion. I wish you the best of luck getting your patches merged. I
> suspect you're gonna need it.

I submitted them so other people could benefit from it. In the end I
could care less about what you do with them, or if they are merged.
Now that is clear that trying to do so is a waste of time and energy,
I'm free to go with a clean conscience, knowing that these patches
didn't help others because I didn't try to, but because some council of
vagueness decided it doesn't fit their particularly flawed view of the
world.

See you in the next commit fixing a kernel vulnerability silently that
puts the infrastructure of several organizations at risk for your own
disregard.

	Larry.