Re: Technical repercussions of grsecurity removal

Hi!

On Tue, May 02, 2017 at 09:58:18PM +0200, Daniel Cegiełka wrote:
> This means that any future solution will not be compatible with current
> PaX support.

It doesn't means that. That may happens, or not - if someone will bother
about compatibility, for example.

I also think it makes sense to keep paxmarking in ebuilds, for now.
If not for technical reasons, then just to avoid adding more damage.
GrSec/PaX is not going anywhere, at least not immediately, there are a lot
of systems which still use hardened-sources and may continue using current
versions for long enough time - and they'll need that paxmarking for
current and new versions of ebuilds. Plus there is a non-zero chance next
solution will replace GrSec/PaX in more or less compatible way. And thus
until it became clear next solution doesn't require similar paxmarking at
same places or supporting paxmarking in existing ebuilds will require any
noticeable effort - there is no good reason to destroy something what just
works now.

> Again: years of work and PaX support ends in the trash.

Yeah, we already know you feel it this way. Any reason to repeat this
again and again? How this will improve anything?

-- 
			WBR, Alex.