Re: The state of grsecurity in gentoo

Am 03.09.2015 23:08 schrieb Marc Schiffbauer:
> * Matthew Thode schrieb am 03.09.15 um 21:46 Uhr:
>> On 09/03/2015 02:28 PM, Marc Schiffbauer wrote:
>> > * Anthony G. Basile schrieb am 02.09.15 um 18:13 Uhr:
>> >> Hi everyone,
>> >>
>> >> So by now most people have heard the news that the Grsecurity/PaX team
>> >> are no longer going to be making their stable patches available.  The
>> >> reason is that they are in dispute with a certain embedded systems
>> >> vendor and those negotiations broke down.  So they decided to make their
>> >> stable patches only available to the sponsors. [1]
>> >>
>> >> What does this mean for Gentoo?  Up until now I have been maintaining
>> >> both the grsec upstream stable and testing patchsets in our
>> >> hardened-sources.  Currently the upstream stable kernels are 3.2.71 and
>> >> 3.14.51 and the testing are 4.1.6.  In about one week, the 3.2.71 and
>> >> 3.14.51 patchsets will no longer be available and I'll continue pushing
>> >> out the 4.1.6.  Unfortunately the testing patchset is precisely as the
>> >> name suggests --- for testing and not production.  For the embedded
>> >> systems company this will be the kiss of death because those patches are
>> >> not suitable for long term.  For Gentoo it will mean that I will have to
>> >> be more vigilant about bugs and trying to stick with a well known kernel
>> >> before moving on.  You can still use these kernels in production, but
>> >> you must be carefull about instabilities as upstream pushes out
>> >> experimental feature that may oops or panic.  Keep older kernel images
>> >> around and revert if it doesn't work.  Look to this list for
>> >> announcements about more serious issues like things that can cause data
>> >> loss.
>> >>
>> >> I'm hoping that once this company feels the sting of what has just
>> >> happened, they'll come back to the table and talk with Grsec/PaX people.
>> >> They won't be able to ship boards with grsec anymore because its not so
>> >> easy to switch out a kernel on a board!  If they ship a board with a
>> >> bug, they loose.  We just reboot :)
>> >>
>> >> [1] https://grsecurity.net/
>> >
>> > Can't Gentoo be a sponsor? I think we could easly croudfund a
>> > sponsorship.
>> >
>> > This would help Gentoo and Grsecurty/PaX but OTOH that vendor might just
>> > use the gentoo kernel if they not already did so.
>> >
>> > Thoughts?
>> >
>> We can't do that because it would make the LTS patches public, which
>> spender is trying to avoid.
> 
> True and what I wanted to say with the OTOH part. But doesn't this 
> apply
> to any sponsor? I mean we are talking about GPL'ed Software... does the
> GPL permit to distribute source under some kind of NDA?
> 
> I fully respect their decision but I hope things will be back to normal
> again soon.
> 

No you can't override the GPL with an NDA. But a sponsor - who is 
selling products based on grsecurity - is not required to make the code 
available to the general public, only to the customer who pays for the 
product. They're also not required to make their /patches/ available, 
only the complete source. So even if you get the sources from a customer 
(or you buy the product yourself), you would have to diff the code 
against a vanilla kernel - and then you only get a huge patch that 
includes *all* changes. Extracting just the grsecurity patch from that 
is complicated and error prone. You'll probably run into less bugs if 
you just stick to the public testing patches.

Philipp