On Thu, 12 May 2011, Ingo Molnar wrote: > Funnily enough, back then you wrote this: > > " I'm concerned that we're seeing yet another security scheme being > designed on > the fly, without a well-formed threat model, and without taking into > account > lessons learned from the seemingly endless parade of similar, failed > schemes. " > > so when and how did your opinion of this scheme turn from it being an > "endless > parade of failed schemes" to it being a "well-defined and readily > understandable feature"? :-)
When it was defined in a way which limited its purpose to reducing the attack surface of the sycall interface. - James -- James Morris <jmor...@namei.org> _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
