> 3. for dang: you can't judge a person's maturity without knowing all the
> reasons for his decision, right? because it looks like you haven't
> bothered to read the advisory and therefore missed the "and other
> reasons" part.
I thought I would find what those "other reasons" are, but there aren't. It seems the advisory confirms that this bug WAS the reason that the author decided to abandon it.
Does it mean that the author realized the PaX design was fundamentally flawed in the current kernel, anyway?
Copyright © 2017, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds