On 15 May 2010 at 10:46, David Sommerseth wrote: > On 15/05/10 02:15, pagee...@freemail.hu wrote: > > i'd need the vmlinux image to tell for sure but it's most likely a false > > positive > > that has been fixed since in later kernels, so please try to use something > > we actually > > support (.32 or .33, soon .34), not .28. > > I'm sorry for probably being quite upset now. But in regards to the > supported version, that sounds like utter non-sense to me. I just > updated the portage tree ... and this is what is available there:
i think you misunderstood me. when i talked about support, i wasn't talking about hardened-gentoo, i was talking about PaX/grsecurity only (myself being the upstream ;). and yes, that means that if the hardened gentoo maintainers cannot provide anything newer than .28/.29 themselves for whatever reasons, then you'll have to roll your own kernels if you expect *us* (PaX/grsec devs) to support you. this is simply because we have only so much time and desire for backporting fixes to older kernels (and it's always been the case, we never supported more than one kernel version before, .32 stable support is a new thing for us). > We *seriously* need to get this clarified now. There might even be a > lot of users who don't visit the hardened IRC channel or the mailing > list - and they are most probably running a .28-r9 kernel, which is the > latest stable kernel - at least how I can understand it ... this > situation is making me uncomfortable and quite worried now! i certainly agree that .28 stable is not a good idea when the rest of the world has decided on at least .32 for a longer term stable kernel, but i'm not the guy to have this discussion with, you should ask the hardened maintainers, if there's anyone still left active.
