3 ms·

> W^X: First used for sparc, sparc64, alpha, and hppa in OpenBSD 3.3. Today, most architectures implement it. Oh come ON! Is OpenBSD still pretending they: a)

> W^X: First used for sparc, sparc64, alpha, and hppa in OpenBSD 3.3. Today, most architectures implement it. Oh come ON! Is OpenBSD still pretending they: a) invented this b) understood it (said "X is impossible" when PAX already did it) Really, OpenBSD? Really? Theo and friends explicitly say they don't look at what Linux does, which does explain that they can claim that they are first. 1) Don't look for or at state of the art. 2) Pretend you're doing state of the art, since you've not seen the others.

allep 11y ago
a fundamental difference between W^X and PAX is that PAX can be disabled on a per binary based, where W^X is applied on the whole system. That more aggressive aproach has been applied first on OpenBSD and i like to believe that's that they are referring to
- thomashabets2 11y ago
  You'd like to believe that but it's not. See my reply to the other person replying to me.
noqax 11y ago
The PAX/grsec people generally appear confounded by this, claiming their patch was first and that they were #1. The reality is that even today their patches remain largely uncommitted patches, and as a community, they didn't push as hard as OpenBSD did and continues to do with upstream projects. They much rather publicly attack OpenBSD, which has historically ignored them preferring to do actual work. The software ecosystem as a whole has gained far more from OpenBSDs efforts than that of the PAX/grsec teams.
- thomashabets2 11y ago
  What bothers me is that: 1) "We invented W^X" -- No you didn't. Well, at best you re-invented it. 2) "It cannot be done on x86" -- Uh, PAX is doing it on x86. ... 3) "Oh look how awesome we are, we invented a way to do it work on x86 too." -- Whatevs. Don't build a straw man from my comment and pretend that I said things I didn't.
- the_why_of_y 11y ago
  This is ridiculous. Since OpenBSD started as a fork of NetBSD, one could similarly claim that innovations in OpenBSD are irrelevant if they have not been picked up and integrated by NetBSD.

allep 11y ago

a fundamental difference between W^X and PAX is that PAX can be disabled on a per binary based, where W^X is applied on the whole system. That more aggressive aproach has been applied first on OpenBSD and i like to believe that's that they are referring to

thomashabets2 11y ago
You'd like to believe that but it's not. See my reply to the other person replying to me.

noqax 11y ago

The PAX/grsec people generally appear confounded by this, claiming their patch was first and that they were #1. The reality is that even today their patches remain largely uncommitted patches, and as a community, they didn't push as hard as OpenBSD did and continues to do with upstream projects. They much rather publicly attack OpenBSD, which has historically ignored them preferring to do actual work. The software ecosystem as a whole has gained far more from OpenBSDs efforts than that of the PAX/grsec teams.

thomashabets2 11y ago
What bothers me is that: 1) "We invented W^X" -- No you didn't. Well, at best you re-invented it. 2) "It cannot be done on x86" -- Uh, PAX is doing it on x86. ... 3) "Oh look how awesome we are, we invented a way to do it work on x86 too." -- Whatevs. Don't build a straw man from my comment and pretend that I said things I didn't.
the_why_of_y 11y ago
This is ridiculous. Since OpenBSD started as a fork of NetBSD, one could similarly claim that innovations in OpenBSD are irrelevant if they have not been picked up and integrated by NetBSD.