| 1 |
On 28/10/2010 02:14, Pavel Labushev wrote: |
| 2 |
>> eruption or something else. Now collection is expanded to patches that |
| 3 |
>> will not be mainstreamed :> This is GOOD PRACTICE :). Thinking about |
| 4 |
> Another distros do include patches for glibc not accepted by mainstream. |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> In this particular case the patch is pretty trivial. And how many users |
| 7 |
> actually need those LD_* vars to be handled for setuid/setgid binaries? |
| 8 |
> My bet it's less than 1% of them, and even less than 0.1% of Hardened users. |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> And what's the problem with including the patch only for glibc[hardened] |
| 11 |
> and/or glibc[-debug]? I guess that's what at least Hardened users want: |
| 12 |
> to proactively secure their system, even at the expense of some |
| 13 |
> debugging facilities (PIE vs<gdb-7.1 as an example). |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> To reject the patch without any explaination was one man's decision I do |
| 16 |
> not agree personally, especially after Gentoo security team failed to |
| 17 |
> fix the recent glibc vulns in a timely manner. |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
> On another point, if some users want this particular patch to be |
| 20 |
> included, they should speak for themselves. By now I don't see much |
| 21 |
> interest even among #gentoo-hardened people. |
| 22 |
> |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
I don't understand why upstream are against taking this patch? Can you |
| 25 |
expand? |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
Your argument seems compelling - I just don't understand why there is |
| 28 |
any resistance? |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
Cheers |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
Ed W |
Archives