[Posted only on LKML, this has become humour.]
On Thu, Feb 10, 2005 at 09:03:00PM +0100, David Weinehall wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 10, 2005 at 04:21:49PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >
> > * Jakob Oestergaard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > PaX cannot be a 'little bit pregnant'. (you might argue
[Posted only on LKML, this has become humour.]
On Thu, Feb 10, 2005 at 09:03:00PM +0100, David Weinehall wrote:
On Thu, Feb 10, 2005 at 04:21:49PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
* Jakob Oestergaard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
PaX cannot be a 'little bit pregnant'. (you might argue that
On Thu, Feb 10, 2005 at 04:21:49PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Jakob Oestergaard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Feb 10, 2005 at 02:43:14PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > >
> > > * [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > > the bigger problem is however that you're
* Jakob Oestergaard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 10, 2005 at 02:43:14PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >
> > * [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > the bigger problem is however that you're once again fixing the
> > > symptoms, instead of the underlying problem - not
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> the bigger problem is however that you're once again fixing the
> symptoms, instead of the underlying problem - not the correct
> approach/mindset.
i'll change my approach/mindset when it is proven that "the underlying
problem" can be solved. (in
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
the bigger problem is however that you're once again fixing the
symptoms, instead of the underlying problem - not the correct
approach/mindset.
i'll change my approach/mindset when it is proven that the underlying
problem can be solved. (in a
* Jakob Oestergaard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Feb 10, 2005 at 02:43:14PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
the bigger problem is however that you're once again fixing the
symptoms, instead of the underlying problem - not the correct
On Thu, Feb 10, 2005 at 04:21:49PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
* Jakob Oestergaard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Feb 10, 2005 at 02:43:14PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
the bigger problem is however that you're once again fixing the
Followup to: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
By author:Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
In newsgroup: linux.dev.kernel
>
> This, on the face of it, seems like a ridiculous possibility as the
> chances of that are reverse proportional to the number of bits necessary
> to implement the simplest Turing
* Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> http://pax.grsecurity.net/docs/pax-future.txt
>
>To understand the future direction of PaX, let's summarize what we
>achieve currently. The goal is to prevent/detect exploiting of
>software bugs that allow arbitrary read/write access to
* Ingo Molnar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
http://pax.grsecurity.net/docs/pax-future.txt
To understand the future direction of PaX, let's summarize what we
achieve currently. The goal is to prevent/detect exploiting of
software bugs that allow arbitrary read/write access to the
Followup to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
By author:Ingo Molnar [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In newsgroup: linux.dev.kernel
This, on the face of it, seems like a ridiculous possibility as the
chances of that are reverse proportional to the number of bits necessary
to implement the simplest Turing Machine.
12 matches
Mail list logo