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.