3 ms·
Nope, this is the first email - http://lkml.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/1711.2/01357.html http://lkml.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/1711.2/01357.html Entire
by avinassh 9y ago
Nope, this is the first email - http://lkml.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/1711.2/01357.html http://lkml.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/1711.2/01357.html
Entire thread links from start:
1 - http://lkml.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/1711.2/01325.html http://lkml.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/1711.2/01325.html
2 - http://lkml.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/1711.2/01357.html http://lkml.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/1711.2/01357.html
3 - http://lkml.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/1711.2/01368.html http://lkml.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/1711.2/01368.html
4 - http://lkml.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/1711.2/01636.html http://lkml.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/1711.2/01636.html
5 - http://lkml.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/1711.2/01701.html http://lkml.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/1711.2/01701.html
- FussyZeus 9y agoNormally I'm not a fan of Linus, but this: > IT IS NOT ACCEPTABLE when security people set magical new rules, and then make the kernel panic when those new rules are violated. > That is pure and utter bullshit. We've had more than a quarter century _without_ those rules, you don't then suddenly walz in and say "oh, everbody must do this, and if you haven't, we will kill the kernel". > The fact that you "introduced the fallback mode" late in that series just shows HOW INCREDIBLY BROKEN the series started out. This makes perfect sense and outlines a real problem with security patching in general.
- digi_owl 9y agoSadly this kind of magical security thinking have many proponents higher up in the Linux stack, and they have the backing/support of GKH. Thus i worry what will happen the day Linus give up the reins.
- FussyZeus 9y agoI honestly don't think Linus will give it up until he's in a box. He lives and breathes the kernel.