How irrelevant. I suppose you just give up after the first try? They touch completely different sets of files, which context allows you to understand is the point. AA's patch was more intrusive.
"404 - Unknown commit object"
>with due respect to Andrea's efforts, there was really no need to touch arch
So you admit the patch shouldn't have been accepted.
> it's still the right idea and approach
You just admitted that it was the wrong approach, since it touched arch files it didn't need to, etc.
Which vendor or distro included AA's 2004 patch, since you now claim it is "the right approach"? If you've got a (working) link to a vendor commit, from a long time ago, you will begin to have a better argument.
> [a compelling case was presented] in 2004-2005 already
You've previously claimed that Linus and the other kernel developers are "not qualified" to make judgements about security patches "due to lack of expertise".
So, what have the security "experts" come up with that is better than Linus's solution, and why not 5 years ago when they discussed it? Where is the non-butt-ugly-hack fix that you advocate?
Copyright © 2017, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds