Re: [gentoo-dev] Regarding the State of PaX in the tree

2018-04-19 Thread Marc Schiffbauer
* Anthony G. Basile schrieb am 16.04.18 um 14:12 Uhr: > On 4/16/18 4:05 AM, Marc Schiffbauer wrote: > > * Anthony G. Basile schrieb am 16.04.18 um 02:04 Uhr: > >> Hi everyone, > > > > Hi Anthony, > > > > I vote for keeping PaX Support as I am still using it and might be doing > > so in the futur

Re: [gentoo-dev] Regarding the State of PaX in the tree

2018-04-16 Thread Jason Zaman
On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 07:53:07PM +0200, Toralf Förster wrote: > On 04/16/2018 11:14 AM, Hanno Böck wrote: > > There's also another question related to this: What's the future for > > Gentoo hardened? > > From what I can tell hardened consists of: > > * the things that try to make it compatible wi

Re: [gentoo-dev] Regarding the State of PaX in the tree

2018-04-16 Thread Toralf Förster
On 04/16/2018 11:14 AM, Hanno Böck wrote: > There's also another question related to this: What's the future for > Gentoo hardened? > From what I can tell hardened consists of: > * the things that try to make it compatible with grsec/pax > (more or less obsolete). > * things that are now in defau

Re: [gentoo-dev] Regarding the State of PaX in the tree

2018-04-16 Thread Patrick McLean
On 2018-04-16 05:12 AM, Anthony G. Basile wrote: > On 4/16/18 4:05 AM, Marc Schiffbauer wrote: >> * Anthony G. Basile schrieb am 16.04.18 um 02:04 Uhr: >>> Hi everyone, >> >> Hi Anthony, >> >> I vote for keeping PaX Support as I am still using it and might be doing >> so in the future. >> >> Thank

Re: [gentoo-dev] Regarding the State of PaX in the tree

2018-04-16 Thread Francesco Riosa
Il 16/04/2018 14:31, Anthony G. Basile ha scritto: > On 4/16/18 5:14 AM, Hanno Böck wrote: [snip] > >> >> There's also another question related to this: What's the future for >> Gentoo hardened? >> From what I can tell hardened consists of: >> * the things that try to make it compatible with grsec

Re: [gentoo-dev] Regarding the State of PaX in the tree

2018-04-16 Thread Anthony G. Basile
On 4/16/18 5:14 AM, Hanno Böck wrote: > Hi, > > I honestly don't see how it would be feasible to maintain a feature > that the developers maintaining it have access to. I think you're missing a negation in there. Point well taken though. > > I get that this whole pax-thing embodies a huge par

Re: [gentoo-dev] Regarding the State of PaX in the tree

2018-04-16 Thread Anthony G. Basile
On 4/16/18 3:22 AM, Ulrich Mueller wrote: >> On Mon, 16 Apr 2018, Michał Górny wrote: > >> W dniu nie, 15.04.2018 o godzinie 20∶04 -0400, użytkownik >> Anthony G. Basile napisał: >>> The question then is, do we remove all this code? As thing stands, >>> its just lint that serves no current pur

Re: [gentoo-dev] Regarding the State of PaX in the tree

2018-04-16 Thread Anthony G. Basile
On 4/16/18 4:05 AM, Marc Schiffbauer wrote: > * Anthony G. Basile schrieb am 16.04.18 um 02:04 Uhr: >> Hi everyone, > > Hi Anthony, > > I vote for keeping PaX Support as I am still using it and might be doing > so in the future. > > Thanks ;) > -Marc > How are you able to test? Do you have y

Re: [gentoo-dev] Regarding the State of PaX in the tree

2018-04-16 Thread Hanno Böck
Hi, I honestly don't see how it would be feasible to maintain a feature that the developers maintaining it have access to. I get that this whole pax-thing embodies a huge part of Gentoo history and it may feel hard for some to let it go. But things are how they are. Regarding the fork states: I

Re: [gentoo-dev] Regarding the State of PaX in the tree

2018-04-16 Thread Marc Schiffbauer
* Anthony G. Basile schrieb am 16.04.18 um 02:04 Uhr: > Hi everyone, Hi Anthony, I vote for keeping PaX Support as I am still using it and might be doing so in the future. Thanks ;) -Marc -- 0xCA3E7BF67F979BE5 - F7FB 78F7 7CC3 79F6 DF07 6E9E CA3E 7BF6 7F97 9BE5 signatur

Re: [gentoo-dev] Regarding the State of PaX in the tree

2018-04-16 Thread Ulrich Mueller
> On Mon, 16 Apr 2018, Michał Górny wrote: > W dniu nie, 15.04.2018 o godzinie 20∶04 -0400, użytkownik > Anthony G. Basile napisał: >> The question then is, do we remove all this code? As thing stands, >> its just lint that serves no current purpose, so removing it would >> clean things up. Th

Re: [gentoo-dev] Regarding the State of PaX in the tree

2018-04-15 Thread Michał Górny
W dniu nie, 15.04.2018 o godzinie 20∶04 -0400, użytkownik Anthony G. Basile napisał: > Hi everyone, > > Magnus (aka Zorry) and I have been talking about what to do with PaX in > the Gentoo tree. A year ago, grsecurity.net upstream stopped providing > open versions of their patches to the communit

Re: [gentoo-dev] Regarding the State of PaX in the tree

2018-04-15 Thread Sam Jorna
On Sun, Apr 15, 2018 at 08:04:43PM -0400, Anthony G. Basile wrote: > The question then is, do we remove all this code? As thing stands, its > just lint that serves no current purpose, so removing it would clean > things up. The disadvantage is it would be a pita to ever restore it if > we ever wa

Re: [gentoo-dev] Regarding the State of PaX in the tree

2018-04-15 Thread R0b0t1
On Sun, Apr 15, 2018 at 7:04 PM, Anthony G. Basile wrote: > Hi everyone, > > Magnus (aka Zorry) and I have been talking about what to do with PaX in > the Gentoo tree. A year ago, grsecurity.net upstream stopped providing > open versions of their patches to the community and this basically > brou

[gentoo-dev] Regarding the State of PaX in the tree

2018-04-15 Thread Anthony G. Basile
Hi everyone, Magnus (aka Zorry) and I have been talking about what to do with PaX in the Gentoo tree. A year ago, grsecurity.net upstream stopped providing open versions of their patches to the community and this basically brought an end to sys-kernel/hardened-sources. I waited a while before ma