[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Bug#605090: Linux 3.2 in wheezy



> On do, 2012-02-02 at 12:18 +1100, Russell Coker wrote: 
> > On Thu, 2 Feb 2012, dann frazier <dannf@dannf.org> wrote:
> > > Whilte it may help the kernel team to not have to worry about problems
> > > in the grsec flavor when preparing uploads, preventing delays for the
> > > non-grsec images. But, that just pushes the coordination down a ways -
> > > for stable updates we would need to add the grsec build into the
> > > pipeline, and there'd be delays in grsec security updates that go in
> > > via linux-2.6. Not nak'ing the idea, but it does extend some critical
> > > paths.
> > 
> > The current approach of having a kernel patch package seems to work well.  It 
> > removes the need for involvement of the kernel and security teams (presumably 
> > security changes to the kernel will usually not require changes to the 
> > grsecurity patch) and allows the users to easily build their own kernels.
> > 
> > If a user has a choice between using Spender's Debian package and a kernel-
> > patch package to build their own kernel then I think that they should be able 
> > to do whatever they want.
> > 
> > Spender suggested that people who want GRSecurity on Debian would be better 
> > off using a .deb he provides and working on user-space hardening.
> > 

(please don't top-post)
If people on the CC: list want to be dropped, please ask :)

On jeu., 2012-02-02 at 07:18 +0100, Kees de Jong wrote:
> Perhaps you should contact Julien Tinnes of http://kernelsec.cr0.org/ 
> He has been too busy to work on the kernels lately but maybe he wants
to help.
> 
> 

Well Julien was aware of my initiative and, afaict, he didn't really
have time for that, nor was interested in the porting part.

And as I said before, I'm not interested in shipping just a patch in
Debian. If users want to patch the kernel, configure it and built it, I
think they're better off getting the latest patch from grsecurity.net
and kernel from kernel.org. The point was in shipping a binary package
with a default setup secure enough, and a way to tune the features
through sysctl.

Regards,
-- 
Yves-Alexis

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part


Reply to: