State of the Kernel Self Protection Project

Posted Sep 1, 2016 4:44 UTC (Thu) by kris.shannon (subscriber, #45828)
In reply to: State of the Kernel Self Protection Project by spender
Parent article: State of the Kernel Self Protection Project

I have not yet read the slides, but from the article I assumed that the features KSPP has upstreamed were mainly from grsecurity/PAX.

I can understand your annoyance if they have mishandled a feature (as you suggest they have with PAX_USERCOPY) but your constant assumption of bad faith is counterproductive.

When I saw there was just one comment to this I had already guessed it was going to be from you and I was pretty sure of what the tone of it would be.

to post comments

State of the Kernel Self Protection Project

Posted Sep 1, 2016 4:53 UTC (Thu) by spender (guest, #23067) [Link] (3 responses)

And when I saw a reply to my comment, I knew it would be the old tired tone argument with no technical contribution or rebuttal.

-Brad

State of the Kernel Self Protection Project

Posted Sep 1, 2016 7:43 UTC (Thu) by micka (subscriber, #38720) [Link] (2 responses)

Well, you know, I knew when I saw your name on a post, I knew that it wouldn't amount to anything interesting before reading it.

State of the Kernel Self Protection Project

Posted Sep 1, 2016 8:35 UTC (Thu) by corbet (editor, #1) [Link] (1 responses)

Please, regardless of the quality of the original comment, this kind of thing doesn't make the conversation better. If you disagree with what he wrote, feel free to say how you would correct it, but let's keep the conversation on that level if we can...?

Thanks.

State of the Kernel Self Protection Project

Posted Sep 1, 2016 9:59 UTC (Thu) by micka (subscriber, #38720) [Link]

Yes you're right, I'll just use the blacklist.