Thank you so much for quick reply. I think you are absolutely right for Debian Stable. And I don't think I was right even in Debian Testing because I do not know what is done in the trinity test. I think I understand why the conservative approach is needed.
I was merely curious about what makes the differences between x32-specific security bugs and non-x32-specific ones. I believe the x32 binary support is just an option not different from the other kernel options; and any kernel option increases the threatening level in security. But we do not turned off all the kernel options; even though we all know that bugs are everywhere. I can totally agree with you if the reason why x32-option is turned off is that it can't be built as a module, rarely used, or hard to test. But if not, I just thought x32-specific feature can be tested in Sid or Testing like the other features because those stages aim to find out bugs. Anyhow I really appreciate that you inform me of the current situation and the progress. If you have any hyperlink to knowledge base about trinity test, please let me know. ( I googled it for a while bug found nothing. ) Thank you. Regards, Hae-woo Park 2013/9/22 Ben Hutchings <[email protected]> > On Sun, 2013-09-22 at 21:32 +0900, Hae-woo Park wrote: > > > > AFAIK, there are many x32 packages in amd64 repository. > > > > However, they are unusable due to that the kernel packages turned off > > the related option. > > Actually I do not know what the trinity test is; however, > > IMHO, the option could be turned on for user tests, at least on > > Jessie. > > I don't think you understand my concern. If there is any security issue > specific to x32 syscalls then we make all the amd64 installations > vulnerable, not just those where the administrator actually wants to > support x32. > > > Is there any progress in this issue ? > > I think Matthias Klose was going to try running trinity on x32. > > Ben. > > -- > Ben Hutchings > compatible: Gracefully accepts erroneous data from any source >
