Hector Martin

(or you have experience, but you are trying to pursue an agenda, which is IMHO a bit worse, but understandable)

arguments that ppl just came to exactly same solution ∗after∗ having read someone else's are disturbing

That's a false allegation. It's not what happened. You are making an outright false claim about what someone did without evidence.

It's completely untrue that it was after reading the other implementation. It's further not true that it's exactly the same implementation.

They implemented their fix before the kernel had get_random_long, so it used a non-CSPRNG implementation. They needed the proper fix too.

If I was aware they had their alternative fix for it, I would have mentioned it in the commit message and pointed out what was different.

The __ro_after_init changes actually were taken from PaX unlike this, and therefore reference it in the commit and explain what was changed.

it was'nt about a particular case but the point:ok to not be aware.once made aware,credit