Re: [gentoo-hardened] Technical repercussions of grsecurity removal

[Daniel Cegiełka]

2017-05-01 11:38 GMT+02:00 Sven Vermeulen <swift@g.o>:
> Hi all,
>
> There is a nice debate ongoing on the mailinglist [1] on the topic of
> grsecurity's recent decision to no longer provide the test patches to the
> public. I'd like to keep the debate on the rationale of it in that
> discussion, but focus here on what we, from Gentoo Hardened, now need to do
> or which direction we're going to move forward with.
>
> [1]
> https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-hardened/message/a06145056b167f52c079bffd9c9a51ac
>
> The obvious step is indeed to stop further *current* development on
> hardened-sources. I don't know how many additional patchsets are being
> implemented in it (blueness? Zorry?) so I don't know if it means that
> hardened-sources in total is done with or not.

Hi,

I have already written my opinion:

https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-hardened/message/97ccd6d5eb7f94c3cce2ac48ed41a7bb

https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-hardened/message/139ab72c413b2b83e08c948b061882bf


Summing up:

* PaX is the most important part of Gentoo Hardened project
(Grsecurity, SELinux, RSBAC)

* We can't use the 'grsecurity' name, which means that fork of
grsecurity == rewriting everything with 'grsecurity' (or 'grsec')
name... (~225k LOC grsec+PaX)

* PaX (~176k LOC) is available as a separate patch (1), so we can use
it without the risk of 'grsecurity' trademark

My opinion is: we should continue to use PaX patch and keep the Gentoo
Hardened project alive.

(1)  https://www.grsecurity.net/~paxguy1/

Daniel