3 ms·
You've got it a bit wrong. Brad Spengler (aka spender) and much of the grsecurity team's goal is making Linux more secure by working on grsecurity. They're not
by SEJeff 10y ago
You've got it a bit wrong. Brad Spengler (aka spender) and much of the grsecurity team's goal is making Linux more secure by working on grsecurity. They're not interested in totally rewriting large portions of Linux technical debt to make Linux more secure, but upstream demands they do it. Is spender often a bit of a prick, yes, but is he virtually 100% right on security things, also yes. It wasn't really a rejection from kernel mainline so much as they don't have any interest in submitting it. You can't have rejected what you never submitted in the first place.
Fast forward to now and you have kernel heavyweights like Kees Cook (former Canonical kernel/security lead now chromeos security badass extraordinaire) working on bringing these features into mainline via the aforementioned KSP projects. In the end, Linux is getting more secure, and it is largely in part to the hard work of the entire GRSec team, even if they're a bit abrasive to work with.
- technofiend 10y agoI was specifically referring to this post by Linus himself http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/774824 http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/774824 in which he states >The apparent inability (and perhaps more importantly - total unwillingless) from the PaX team to be able to see what makes sense in a long-term general kernel and what does not, and split things up and try to push the sensible things up (and know which things are too ugly or too specialized to make sense), caused many PaX features to never be merged. Although there are other posts since debating the same point such as this one https://lkml.org/lkml/2005/1/25/141 https://lkml.org/lkml/2005/1/25/141