| 1 |
On Sat, 29 Apr 2017 17:56:10 +0200 |
| 2 |
Daniel Cegiełka <daniel.cegielka@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> By the way, I don't know what the Gentoo Hardened or Alpine Linux |
| 5 |
> have done wrong, that now are left out in the cold. |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
That's the part I don't get either. Since the only possible motivation |
| 8 |
I can think of for this move is to generate more income, they could've |
| 9 |
at least tried asking the community for donations first. |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
Now, I suppose someone is going to answer "If you'd be willing do |
| 12 |
regularily donate to them, you might as well get a subscription", but I |
| 13 |
fear this might have some serious drawbacks. In the past years, |
| 14 |
the Gentoo Hardened devs have invested quite some work to make sure |
| 15 |
most applications in the tree work on grsec/PaX-enabled kernels without |
| 16 |
too much fallout. But now, there's suddently a lot less motivation to |
| 17 |
keep up this work. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
> Instead of complaining, we have to decide what to do next. In my |
| 20 |
> opinion, it is critical to maintain support for PaX* for future |
| 21 |
> kernels. It will not be easy, so I'm right away saying that Gentoo |
| 22 |
> Hardened, Alpine Linux etc. should join forces in realizing this |
| 23 |
> project. I think there will be more people who will be interested |
| 24 |
> in... |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
It might be hard to come up with the manpower needed to maintain such a |
| 27 |
large kernel patch. Assuming upstream stand by their decision in |
| 28 |
the long run, I think the only reasonable long-term approach would be to |
| 29 |
try mainlining as much as possible and forget about the rest. And as |
| 30 |
Brad and PaX Team can surely tell us, that'd be a gargantuan task if it |
| 31 |
is at all possible. |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
Regards, |
| 34 |
Luis |
Archives