4 ms·
> But they don't want to merge patches to the kernel. To be clear, the 'they' in that sentence are the authors of GRSecurity, not the kernel developers.
by mburns 11y ago
> But they don't want to merge patches to the kernel.
To be clear, the 'they' in that sentence are the authors of GRSecurity, not the kernel developers.
- simoncion 11y agoAre you sure about that? From what I heard Torvalds refuses to merge patches from folks who won't identify themselves[0], and the PaX Team refuses to reveal the membership of the team. [0] This is a perfectly reasonable policy.
- JustSomeNobody 11y agoThe problem is they're both right.
- simoncion 11y agoPardon me, I'm confused. Who is "they" in your statement? Is it the mass "you"? Is it referring to my statement and mburns's statement? If it is, then can you provide a first-hand citation that supports mburns's statement? AIUI, the GRSec folks don't gain anything by keeping their patches out of tree. If they could merge them in, they should.
- mburns 11y agoGRSecurity devs have actively avoided submitting the patches into mainline. http://unix.stackexchange.com/questions/59020/why-are-the-grsecurity-patches-not-included-in-the-vanilla-kernel/59039#59039 http://unix.stackexchange.com/questions/59020/why-are-the-gr... Someone should really break up the patchset and submit it upstream as discrete features.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- simoncion 11y agoIf you can't get the PaX Team to attribute their code to a meatsack, (or -I guess- get someone to vouch for it), then this will be a non-starter. Grsec is pretty much useless without PaX.