Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sun, 31 May 2009 05:30:15 -0700 | From | "Larry H." <> | Subject | Re: [patch 0/5] Support for sanitization flag in low-level page allocator |
| |
On 15:16 Sun 31 May , Pekka Enberg wrote: > On Sun, May 31, 2009 at 2:58 PM, Larry H. <research@subreption.com> wrote: > > Thanks for coming to the conclusion that unconditional memory > > sanitization is the correct approach. > > > > I thought this had been stated numerous times before in this thread. Are > > you serious about your responses or you are just clowning around? It's > > amusing, I give you that much. > > So is this the same Larry that was able to have a productive and civil > discussion on #mm on IRC where he wanted me to ACK his patches? Or did > his evil identical twin take over the keyboard?
I was merely making sure what your intentions were regarding the patches. And it's clear you have utter disregard for them, and security as a whole. In your idea of the world 'there are no secrets'.
Good luck with that.
> But anyway, enough is enough, and I really am not interested in this > discussion. I wish you the best of luck getting your patches merged. I > suspect you're gonna need it.
I submitted them so other people could benefit from it. In the end I could care less about what you do with them, or if they are merged. Now that is clear that trying to do so is a waste of time and energy, I'm free to go with a clean conscience, knowing that these patches didn't help others because I didn't try to, but because some council of vagueness decided it doesn't fit their particularly flawed view of the world.
See you in the next commit fixing a kernel vulnerability silently that puts the infrastructure of several organizations at risk for your own disregard.
Larry.
| |