5 ms·
You can't this seriously since it does not mention grsecurity. No need to "rethink" kernel security, just use grsecurity.
by eugeneionesco 10y ago
You can't this seriously since it does not mention grsecurity.
No need to "rethink" kernel security, just use grsecurity.
- na85 10y agoYes, it's always bad to go over things with a critical eye, looking for a better approach that might exist. Better to just stick with the status quo and not ask too many questions.
- drvdevd 10y agoActually, it does seem odd that grsecurity wasn't mentioned. It's the first thing that comes to mind when I think of "killing entire classes of bugs" in the Linux Kernel. Many of the "safety" features we have now in most operating systems started there.. ASLR for example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Address_space_layout_randomization#History https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Address_space_layout_randomiza...
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- viraptor 10y agoThey do mention it, just not by name. Kees Cook and the Kernel Self Protection Project is basically trying to move some protections that exist in grsec into mainline kernel. (since grsec as a whole will never get accepted)
- micaksica 10y agoAnd a 2009 LWN post as to why grsec won't be accepted: https://lwn.net/Articles/313621/ https://lwn.net/Articles/313621/
- jaimex2 10y agoIs grsecurity the same as SELinux?