Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S262138AbVBJPWO (ORCPT ); Thu, 10 Feb 2005 10:22:14 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262140AbVBJPWO (ORCPT ); Thu, 10 Feb 2005 10:22:14 -0500 Received: from mx2.elte.hu ([157.181.151.9]:46307 "EHLO mx2.elte.hu") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262138AbVBJPV7 (ORCPT ); Thu, 10 Feb 2005 10:21:59 -0500 Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2005 16:21:49 +0100 From: Ingo Molnar To: Jakob Oestergaard , pageexec@freemail.hu, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Arjan van de Ven , "Theodore Ts'o" Subject: Re: the "Turing Attack" (was: Sabotaged PaXtest) Message-ID: <20050210152149.GA6697@elte.hu> References: <42080689.15768.1B0C5E5F@localhost> <42093CC7.5086.1FC83D3E@localhost> <20050208164815.GA9903@elte.hu> <20050208220851.GA23687@elte.hu> <20050210134314.GA4146@elte.hu> <20050210135845.GT347@unthought.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20050210135845.GT347@unthought.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i X-ELTE-SpamVersion: MailScanner 4.31.6-itk1 (ELTE 1.2) SpamAssassin 2.63 ClamAV 0.73 X-ELTE-VirusStatus: clean X-ELTE-SpamCheck: no X-ELTE-SpamCheck-Details: score=-4.9, required 5.9, autolearn=not spam, BAYES_00 -4.90 X-ELTE-SpamLevel: X-ELTE-SpamScore: -4 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1493 Lines: 39 * Jakob Oestergaard wrote: > On Thu, Feb 10, 2005 at 02:43:14PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > > > * pageexec@freemail.hu wrote: > > > > > the bigger problem is however that you're once again fixing the > > > symptoms, instead of the underlying problem - not the correct > > > approach/mindset. > > > > i'll change my approach/mindset when it is proven that "the underlying > > problem" can be solved. (in a deterministic fashion) > > I know neither exec-shield nor PaX and therefore have no bias or > preference - I thought I should chirp in on your comment here Ingo... > > ... > > PaX cannot be a 'little bit pregnant'. (you might argue that exec-shield > > is in the 6th month, but that does not change the fundamental > > end-result: a child will be born ;-) > > Yes and no. I would think that the chances of a child being born are > greater if the pregnancy has lasted successfully up until the 6th month, > compared to a first week pregnancy. > > I assume you get my point :) the important point is: neither PaX nor exec-shield can claim _for sure_ that no child will be born, and neither can claim virginity ;-) [ but i guess there's a point where a bad analogy must stop ;) ] Ingo - 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/