Date: Wed, 27 May 2015 21:19:15 -0400 From: Shawn Webb <shawn.webb@hardenedbsd.org> To: Ed Maste <emaste@freebsd.org> Cc: Warner Losh <imp@bsdimp.com>, Pedro Giffuni <pfg@freebsd.org>, Alfred Perlstein <alfred@freebsd.org>, "freebsd-arch@freebsd.org" <freebsd-arch@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: ASLR work into -HEAD ? Message-ID: <3637667.CG6MV3lcfQ@shawnwebb-laptop> In-Reply-To: <CAPyFy2Ah=urTuPj0mwjW%2BJ8sujrvYSZ=fKOo5kqByxhy5_vkXw@mail.gmail.com> References: <555CADB6.202@FreeBSD.org> <2503264.OAH5YVL1Fd@shawnwebb-laptop> <CAPyFy2Ah=urTuPj0mwjW%2BJ8sujrvYSZ=fKOo5kqByxhy5_vkXw@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--nextPart2596045.YBsWsGe7M1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" On Wednesday, 27 May 2015 20:31:12 Ed Maste wrote: > On 27 May 2015 at 20:00, Shawn Webb <shawn.webb@hardenedbsd.org> wrot= e: > > At the FreeBSD Developer Summit at EuroBSDCon 2014, Ed Maste said o= n > > behalf of the FreeBSD Foundation that he (and by extension, the > > Foundation) would block the ASLR patch from being merged into HEAD = if we > > didn't provide a mechanism for disabling ASLR as a non-root user on= a > > per-binary basis. >=20 > I said no such thing. >=20 > I did have reservations about various aspects of the ASLR work and > also passed on concerns of others. I certainly did not say that I (or= > the Foundation) would block the work unless certain conditions were > met. The Foundation doesn't have authority to block a change, anyway.= >=20 > I did say that we'd need the ability to disable ASLR on a per-process= > basis, with my specific interest being use by the debugger. After talking with Ed in private, I realized that I must have misunders= tood=20 the situation. He was mainly curious about how to satisfy existing=20 functionality in gdb and lldb. He didn't mean to convey that he would b= lock=20 the merge of the patch. I must have misunderstood. I still dislike the=20= feature, but it'll remain in the patch upstream. I fear that I may be growing tired of non-technical discussions involvi= ng=20 politics. As I said to Adrian Chadd in IRC, over the last nearly two ye= ars,=20 I've kissed so many shoes to get this in, I've now grown weary and cyni= cal. Unless someone has actual technical input regarding the patch itself, I= 'm=20 going to refrain from commenting further. If you have technical input=20= regarding the patch, please comment on the diff at Phabricator. Thanks, =2D-=20 Shawn Webb HardenedBSD GPG Key ID: 0x6A84658F52456EEE GPG Key Fingerprint: 2ABA B6BD EF6A F486 BE89 3D9E 6A84 658F 5245 6EEE --nextPart2596045.YBsWsGe7M1 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part. Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iQIcBAABCAAGBQJVZm0TAAoJEGqEZY9SRW7uyosP/ROW7gWZ6B4d1lQOU85qnXhr HcIoWoSGcSyS4WwJgm1arjaH4ph5esVgXTiTk3lyk0t0H1E/385QYWl2lYzTd+EP mWQAv7ck3cjDm1EUuJsewOpgzBCY4m3blIUJ7xvAbJX/U1ZbuXOovChFPyRpRuuz vMa/Ujj7aUI131R9ovMI9a+Use4wCwgtY2/Mpb5x2/tJFwF0wobUWCpBjKoiFVSu S9L3x4mNimuX+0rzamVCvjq1SpFhc03f58F07/6Y7Rx89+HsaEByI9ZoynmSYvaq IZRV1eoh3GYyZU7MRSV9+Kx93HIaVnszjf4vFyIl80GcbOeoy5vobQnsZw/UNMU5 nWtSvK6smsHUd6wvvING6jVueBLD5BCIXPd3jnRCiomXSKgu0xgee91YaPPNSS1E 0KSGiGYYS3HPXmmpkuRG8b5Tg5CTdkhnTaiCYaG0Qhy02Bvd7LF6rvARe1eBwvgJ QvFzRc+KNX8D2nfZXqMKeHYcWj13VAY0kfg9rVThOG49Eh6Se3cMvVaX3lObz4GY iKMASRpJoRz5P4QfHASTR7VuA5Jx8N97loywS62473ZOrxGAJR/Wj5SnrLBFcBOc dGIyNjc72p9CqE3Iz1l8aGqzeHkUm3OQxhE5Ye7RxfiJw4lW3HA4oSE0d9rOgU6W c+SyAY1wL+xxcfXpwBqg =rOyv -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --nextPart2596045.YBsWsGe7M1--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3637667.CG6MV3lcfQ>