Actually what I see is patches actually getting some review (unlike grsec changes which, as I found out, are sometimes not tested).
-
We're talking about things like noticing a particular random value isn't properly random due to a bug and fixing it.
*Nobody* has read *all* of grsecurity. The person who found that bug had *no clue* it was fixed in grsec too. (the non-grsec fix was better)
-
-
Keep in mind these are *patches*. They aren't new code. Much of grsec is wide-ranging cleanup/micro-patching of existing kernel code.
-
Okay, I'm out. We need a better venue than twitter as there's too much to explain here.
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
Disturbing that someone that fixes a bug in this space doesn't check the most advanced implementation
-
Why on earth would someone think "hm, I found a kernel bug, let me check just in case grsec also has the fix"? That's ridiculous.
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
I can accept that as true. But it is fixed there. It is been read. Credits must be given.
-
That's not how attribution works. If you independently come up with an idea, you don't have to give credit to someone else.
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
you also add a lot of blame for monolitic, lack of testing etc forgetting they are essentially only two
-
And have a track record of not breaking stuff which is impressive. Every large project has bugs. This is akin to ridiculize devs for bugs
- Show replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.