[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <99FC4B6EFCEFD44486C35F4C281DC6731F1E0062@ORSMSX107.amr.corp.intel.com>
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2015 21:09:41 +0000
From: "Schaufler, Casey" <casey.schaufler@...el.com>
To: "kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com"
<kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com>
Subject: RE: Project convention on configuration options
> -----Original Message-----
> From: HacKurx [mailto:hackurx@...il.com]
> Sent: Friday, December 11, 2015 12:25 PM
> To: kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com
> Subject: Re: [kernel-hardening] Project convention on configuration options
>
> First, respect the work of others...
> https://twitter.com/ioerror/status/636677916365996032
>
> So I hope you are not here for nothing...
> Sorry for such a comment here but I don't like attitude of your enterprise.
Noted.
So, on the topic at hand, what would you suggest? I see real
value in retaining as much of what's been proposed before as
possible.
>
> 2015-12-11 18:57 GMT+01:00 Schaufler, Casey <casey.schaufler@...el.com>:
> >
> >
> > I’m starting to look at PAX_USERCOPY and immediately hit
> > the question of what to do about configuration option name.
> > I assume that retaining PAX_USERCOPY is not the right thing
> > to do, but what should be used instead? HARD_USERCOPY?
> >
> > Thanks.
> >
> >
>
> --
> Best regards,
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
