Subject: Re: Patch 4/6  randomize the stack pointer
From: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@infradead.org>
To: John Richard Moser <nigelenki@comcast.net>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, akpm@osdl.org, torvalds@osdl.org
In-Reply-To: <41F92D2B.4090302@comcast.net>
References: <20050127101117.GA9760@infradead.org>
	 <20050127101322.GE9760@infradead.org>  <41F92721.1030903@comcast.net>
	 <1106848051.5624.110.camel@laptopd505.fenrus.org>
	 <41F92D2B.4090302@comcast.net>
Content-Type: text/plain
Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2005 19:09:31 +0100
Message-Id: <1106849371.5624.114.camel@laptopd505.fenrus.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1299
Lines: 33

On Thu, 2005-01-27 at 13:04 -0500, John Richard Moser wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> What the hell?
> 
> So instead of bringing something in that works, you bring something in
> that does significantly less, and gives no savings on overhead or patch
> complexity why?  So you can later come out and say "We're so great now
> we've increased the randomization by tweaking one variable aren't we
> cool!!!"?

no it is called getting features in via a long incremental and
debuggable patch series.
Apparently you still don't understand that despite the long flamewar in
that other thread. I can't think of any more I can do to explain to you
why doing things in incremental steps is good on top of that.

> 
> Red Hat is all smoke and mirrors anyway when it comes to security, just
> like Microsoft.  This just reaffirms that.

I think you've been talking too much to another so called security
expert that has been spouting similar words on full-disclosure recently.

And I have to wonder.. where does Red Hat come in here?


-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/