Gentoo Archives: gentoo-hardened

From: "Daniel Cegiełka" <daniel.cegielka@×××××.com>
To: gentoo-hardened@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-hardened] RIP hardened-sources
Date: Sat, 29 Apr 2017 18:44:07
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-hardened] RIP hardened-sources by Luis Ressel
1 2017-04-29 19:04 GMT+02:00 Luis Ressel <aranea@×××××.de>:
2 > On Sat, 29 Apr 2017 17:56:10 +0200
3 > Daniel Cegiełka <daniel.cegielka@×××××.com> wrote:
4 >
5 >> By the way, I don't know what the Gentoo Hardened or Alpine Linux
6 >> have done wrong, that now are left out in the cold.
7 >
8 > That's the part I don't get either. Since the only possible motivation
9 > I can think of for this move is to generate more income, they could've
10 > at least tried asking the community for donations first.
12 It's more complex:
16 I don't judge them. I'm interested in the future of projects that were
17 heavily dependent on PaX (Gentoo Hardened, Alpine Linux).
19 > Now, I suppose someone is going to answer "If you'd be willing do
20 > regularily donate to them, you might as well get a subscription", but I
21 > fear this might have some serious drawbacks. In the past years,
22 > the Gentoo Hardened devs have invested quite some work to make sure
23 > most applications in the tree work on grsec/PaX-enabled kernels without
24 > too much fallout. But now, there's suddently a lot less motivation to
25 > keep up this work.
27 Ned Lud (or Solar, but != Designer) has put a lot of work into the
28 launch of Gentoo Hardened and, of course, the popularization of PaX.
29 Old times.. :)
32 >> Instead of complaining, we have to decide what to do next. In my
33 >> opinion, it is critical to maintain support for PaX* for future
34 >> kernels. It will not be easy, so I'm right away saying that Gentoo
35 >> Hardened, Alpine Linux etc. should join forces in realizing this
36 >> project. I think there will be more people who will be interested
37 >> in...
38 >
39 > It might be hard to come up with the manpower needed to maintain such a
40 > large kernel patch. Assuming upstream stand by their decision in
41 > the long run, I think the only reasonable long-term approach would be to
42 > try mainlining as much as possible and forget about the rest. And as
43 > Brad and PaX Team can surely tell us, that'd be a gargantuan task if it
44 > is at all possible.
46 Patch weight is not the problem.. KSPP is. They copy (raw copy.. I
47 hope) code from PaX and bring it to the kernel:
53 This means that there will be conflicts in the future. I don't claim
54 that maintaining PaX support will be easy, but it's possible to do so.
56 Daniel


Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-hardened] RIP hardened-sources "Tóth Attila" <atoth@××××××××××.hu>