Gentoo Archives: gentoo-hardened

From: Marc Schiffbauer <mschiff@g.o>
To: gentoo-hardened@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-hardened] The state of grsecurity in gentoo
Date: Thu, 03 Sep 2015 21:09:20
Message-Id: 20150903210855.GE5210@schiffbauer.net
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-hardened] The state of grsecurity in gentoo by Matthew Thode
1 * Matthew Thode schrieb am 03.09.15 um 21:46 Uhr:
2 > On 09/03/2015 02:28 PM, Marc Schiffbauer wrote:
3 > > * Anthony G. Basile schrieb am 02.09.15 um 18:13 Uhr:
4 > >> Hi everyone,
5 > >>
6 > >> So by now most people have heard the news that the Grsecurity/PaX team
7 > >> are no longer going to be making their stable patches available. The
8 > >> reason is that they are in dispute with a certain embedded systems
9 > >> vendor and those negotiations broke down. So they decided to make their
10 > >> stable patches only available to the sponsors. [1]
11 > >>
12 > >> What does this mean for Gentoo? Up until now I have been maintaining
13 > >> both the grsec upstream stable and testing patchsets in our
14 > >> hardened-sources. Currently the upstream stable kernels are 3.2.71 and
15 > >> 3.14.51 and the testing are 4.1.6. In about one week, the 3.2.71 and
16 > >> 3.14.51 patchsets will no longer be available and I'll continue pushing
17 > >> out the 4.1.6. Unfortunately the testing patchset is precisely as the
18 > >> name suggests --- for testing and not production. For the embedded
19 > >> systems company this will be the kiss of death because those patches are
20 > >> not suitable for long term. For Gentoo it will mean that I will have to
21 > >> be more vigilant about bugs and trying to stick with a well known kernel
22 > >> before moving on. You can still use these kernels in production, but
23 > >> you must be carefull about instabilities as upstream pushes out
24 > >> experimental feature that may oops or panic. Keep older kernel images
25 > >> around and revert if it doesn't work. Look to this list for
26 > >> announcements about more serious issues like things that can cause data
27 > >> loss.
28 > >>
29 > >> I'm hoping that once this company feels the sting of what has just
30 > >> happened, they'll come back to the table and talk with Grsec/PaX people.
31 > >> They won't be able to ship boards with grsec anymore because its not so
32 > >> easy to switch out a kernel on a board! If they ship a board with a
33 > >> bug, they loose. We just reboot :)
34 > >>
35 > >> [1] https://grsecurity.net/
36 > >
37 > > Can't Gentoo be a sponsor? I think we could easly croudfund a
38 > > sponsorship.
39 > >
40 > > This would help Gentoo and Grsecurty/PaX but OTOH that vendor might just
41 > > use the gentoo kernel if they not already did so.
42 > >
43 > > Thoughts?
44 > >
45 > We can't do that because it would make the LTS patches public, which
46 > spender is trying to avoid.
47
48 True and what I wanted to say with the OTOH part. But doesn't this apply
49 to any sponsor? I mean we are talking about GPL'ed Software... does the
50 GPL permit to distribute source under some kind of NDA?
51
52 I fully respect their decision but I hope things will be back to normal
53 again soon.
54
55 -Marc
56
57 >
58
59
60
61 --
62 0x35A64134 - 8AAC 5F46 83B4 DB70 8317
63 3723 296C 6CCA 35A6 4134

Attachments

File name MIME type
signature.asc application/pgp-signature

Replies

Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-hardened] The state of grsecurity in gentoo philipp.ammann@××××××.de