Read the followup by pagexec

I agree it's not a security vulnerability because I understand the definition of vulnerability. We weren't discussing that, though, you just brought it up. What we *were* discussing was the "UNSAFE" name. "UNSAFE" is a perfectly accurate name for the option. If it's not "unsafe" then are you saying fixed-address vsyscall is safe? No, of course you wouldn't say that, that's the entire reason for the patch (read: security)!

So no, I'm not wrong because you brought in a strawman and put words in my mouth ;) BTW, I notice from on here and on LKML you often use appeals to authority as a means of making an argument. As the MIT example should show, it's generally a poor approach to use :)

Anyway, my point has been sufficiently made for the other readers here (as I see you won't ever concede your position). It's very telling really that possibly misleading a hypothetical user into lowering their performance in some cases is taken seriously, whereas misleading them into reducing their security (or rather, maintaining it at the same poor level), is not even discussed/acknowledged ;)

-Brad