4 ms·
Why don't they? There are not that much performance downsides to PaX/grsecurity AFAIK. And it doesn't break the ABI monthly like OpenBSD does. (Don't get me wro
by eloy 11y ago
Why don't they? There are not that much performance downsides to PaX/grsecurity AFAIK. And it doesn't break the ABI monthly like OpenBSD does. (Don't get me wrong, I like OpenBSD personally, but this is not suitable for enterprises)
I don't agree with Torvalds, but at least I can understand him. I don't understand why distros don't implement it.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/business/2015/11/05/net-of-insecurity-the-kernel-of-the-argument/ http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/business/2015/11/05/net-of-...
- cesarb 11y agoDistributions prefer to minimize divergence from upstream, and therefore tend to avoid non-upstreamed patches.
- baghira 11y agoWhile the fact that since last fall grsecurity only ships the stable branch of the patchset for sponsors (because of persistent trademarks violations) doesn't help integration in smaller distributions (also Debian, I would guess), I am always baffled as to why grsecurity/Pax were never chosen by a distro like Suse to differentiate itself from Red Hat.