Arjan van de Ven wrote:
>but really again you are degrading what noexec means.
As far as I can tell, noexec never really did mean anything particularly
coherent in the first place, so I find it hard to get upset about any
potential degradation.
(Second, as far as I can tell, it sounds like it may be more accurate
to characterize this as "revert some of it back to the way the semantics
were a year ago" than as "degrade noexec". But even if it is a degradation,
I fail to see why that is a problem.)
Have you read my other email? I notice that things got awfully quiet
on this thread once I started asking some pointed questions about what
exactly noexec is trying to solve and what exactly the threat model is.
I'm still waiting to hear any answers to those questions or any dispute
to my characterization of noexec.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
