Follow @Openwall on Twitter for new release announcements and other news
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 2015 00:21:55 -0800
From: Josh Triplett <>
To: Emese Revfy <>
Cc: Kees Cook <>, Greg KH <>,
	"" <>,
	PaX Team <>,
	Brad Spengler <>,
	Theodore Tso <>
Subject: Re: Proposal for kernel self protection features

On Sat, Nov 07, 2015 at 11:07:02PM +0100, Emese Revfy wrote:
> > I agree in both cases: having the plugin usable in "make it so" mode for
> > the benefit of legacy or out-of-tree code, and having it usable in
> > "suggest changes to the source" (or outright *edit* the source and
> > produce a patch) mode to avoid actually mandating the plugin.  Not least
> > of which because I'd find it surprising if the plugin ever worked across
> > as broad a range of GCC versions as the kernel typically wants to
> > support.
> All gcc plugins in PaX support all plugin capable gcc versions (4.5-5). 

The kernel supports older GCC than that, though.

> And of course the plugin infrastructure handles gcc versions that don't
> support plugins.

...huh?  How does *that* work?

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.