An ancient kernel hole is closed

Posted Aug 20, 2010 20:32 UTC (Fri) by zakalwe2 (guest, #50472)
In reply to: An ancient kernel hole is closed by chad.netzer
Parent article: An ancient kernel hole is closed

PaXTeam is a gentleman and a scholar. Every time I have had an issue with PaX on a new kernel release he extremely helpful and a fountain of knowledge. Your fanboy defence of linus was worthy of attack by someone who has worked tirelessly to improve the real security of linux and got nothing but grief for his efforts. It is only because of spender and the pax team that the upstream kernel developers stubborn, cavalier attitude towards security is being eroded and the real security of your systems being improved.

An ancient kernel hole is closed

Posted Aug 20, 2010 21:13 UTC (Fri) by chad.netzer (subscriber, #4257) [Link]

Whatever. Give them credit for their work where it is due (absolutely). But people who hijack threads with twisted misrepresentations of what is being discussed are ruinous to the value of this site.

My "defense" of Linus against what seems an unwarranted accusation is justified since no one has adequately explained why the 2004 patch didn't get reworked into an acceptable solution that then got promoted upstream. It now seems less of a technical issue, and more of a communication issue, and I'm seeing *ample* evidence to suggest what kind of factors may have led to that unfortunate situation.

On a side note, to both 'cde' and 'avik', I appreciate your input. In particular 'cde', whom I took issue with stating this was a problem of "priority". This further convinces me it isn't a matter of priorities, but personalities, and "we" may indeed have been denied an earlier fix solely because of it. Thankfully, the right personalities belatedly addressed this particular issue.