Re: [kernel-hardening] It looks like there will be no more public versions of PaX and Grsec.

From: Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
To: Shawn <citypw@gmail.com>
Cc: "Kees Cook" <keescook@chromium.org>,
	"Rik van Riel" <riel@redhat.com>,
	"Mathias Krause" <minipli@googlemail.com>,
	"Daniel Cegiełka" <daniel.cegielka@gmail.com>,
	"kernel-hardening@lists.openwall.com"
	<kernel-hardening@lists.openwall.com>
Subject: Re: [kernel-hardening] It looks like there will be no more public versions of PaX and Grsec.
Date: Thu, 4 May 2017 10:23:55 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20170504172355.GA27000@kroah.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CABniQZPkV7fcsneOML2hu=EKoAbesqXg=hryj8Yim2=iJM=vjg@mail.gmail.com>

On Fri, May 05, 2017 at 01:12:37AM +0800, Shawn wrote:
> Hi Greg
> 
> On Fri, May 5, 2017 at 12:03 AM, Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> > On Thu, May 04, 2017 at 10:11:04PM +0800, Shawn wrote:
> >> That announcement only represented the POV from a group of ppl. From
> >> my( and other ppl from HardenedLinux) perspective, Linux foundation is
> >> a commercial company and very good at PR but zero integrity to us.
> >
> > A slight correction here please.  The LF is a non-profit organization[1]
> > set up to promote Linux and allow companies who want to see Linux
> > succeed, get together and do this.  The LF happens to sponsor a few
> > kernel developers (me and Linus), but they can not tell us what to do at
> > all.
> >
> Oh, that's new to me. LF is a non-profit organization. Maybe some
> "rumors" isn't true: I thought LF hired two "sales" people in HK last
> year? Can you confirm that?

And it's always been a non-profit, that should not be a surprise.

And I don't have any idea what a "sales" person at the LF would do,
perhaps the fact that the LF is hiring people to work with local
companies to become members?  Why not ask them what they do?

> > So there is no "integrity" that the LF can, or can not, have when it
> > comes to anyone here as the LF doesn't actually _do_ anything when it
> > comes to kernel development (again, other than funding 2 developers
> > directly).
> >
> I'm curious what's your offical relationship with Google? Cu'z you
> have this account( gregkh@google.com) from Google:
> https://android.googlesource.com/kernel/common.git/+/e88bb963b88d5579805b90e8d505739692095042
> 
> But you seems still working for LF, aren't you?:
> https://www.linuxfoundation.org/about/linux-foundation-fellows

What does my google account have to do with the LF?  I've had that
account for many many years now, to help Google out with kernel security
work, including stable kernel releases.

I have lots of other email addresses too, doesn't everyone?  :)

And yes, I still work for the LF.

> In my very "narrow" POV( only as FLOSS supporter and security
> consutlant), KSPP would be so much better without LF's involvement and
> PR

So the funding of grsecurity developers to get features merged into
mainline was bad?  That's a very strange viewpoint of "so much better".

good luck!

greg k-h