Re: [kernel-hardening]

[Daniel Micay <danielmicay@gmail.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1195 bytes --]

On 16/11/15 07:13 AM, Richard Weinberger wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 6:33 AM, Daniel Micay <danielmicay@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 15/11/15 03:59 PM, Richard Weinberger wrote:
>>> On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 4:43 PM, west suhanic <west.suhanic@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Hello All:
>>>>
>>>> I am a hardened gentoo user. How can we get the grsecurity code into the
>>>> kernel?
>>>
>>> As soon all downsides and drawbacks are identified/resolved.
>>> Which basically means that we have to redo a lot (it not all).
>>
>> You might not be familiar with the grsecurity/PaX features and their
>> implementations but lots of people are. It's not unexplored territory
>> without known trade-offs. It has active developers who are happy to
>> answer questions about it (within reason).
> 
> I'll kindly ignore this personal attack.

I didn't mean this as a personal attack. I just found that statement to
be off i.e. it seems to imply that PaX/grsecurity are low quality and
that they need to be improved to upstream them, when IMO what really
needs to happen to just making the features more politically acceptable
even if it ends up making them harder to implement / less useful.


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 819 bytes --]