And they say Linus has a potty-mouth. At least he explains, rather than just rides rough-shod over anyone who "doesn't understand".
Sorry, PaXTeam, but my opinion of you hasn't changed since I first saw a comment by you many years ago. And, ironically, you seem to use most of your posts to garner support for your opinion and/or solutions to the problems you see, mainly by telling people how stupid they are to do anything else.
If you were replaced by an emotionless robot with the same technical opinions, I'd have been on your side years ago. As it is, I can't bear to support someone whose idea of useful comment is to provide foreign insults, masked TLA insults (I'm presuming, Google doesn't actually pop up anything for that), announce your superiority and still not come up with an explanation.
The explanation you were after "It hard-codes memory addresses for known kernels". The logical next question is then: How hard is it to find those addresses for the kernel in the example above, and test the exploit properly?
Hell, if I was in your place, I'd make a working exploit for a particular kernel if it's that easy to do so from the code given, and demonstrate your skills rather than mouth off about them (You'll notice that your "explanatory" post was posted after my initial post above - and still that doesn't demonstrate that a newer kernel is or is not vulnerable, only that some well-known kernels have values hardcoded).
Some of us don't touch kernel stuff precisely because we don't have the time/skill/inclination to understand it past a passing glance, and at worst a sarcastic comment would have achieved some education, rather than a flame-thread of back-and-forth.
Subscriber or not, you're putting people off - off this site, off commenting, off learning, and off your projects. If it's a choice between a site with *just* people like yourself, or a site *without* people like yourself, I know which I'd choose every time. I haven't yet said the same of any other contributor on here.