Balder Oddson <ola...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Mar 25, 2021 at 03:40:15PM -0600, Theo de Raadt wrote: > > Stuart Henderson <s...@spacehopper.org> wrote: > > > > > > Not having read the code, case in point on principle, I'm arguing that > > > > there should be solid reasoning to enable it by default, as those with a > > > > need for it can certainly enable it and build a kernel. > > > > > > It's not that simple, using a custom kernel means you can't use syspatches > > > so are more likely to stay on a vulnerable version if a kernel bug is > > > fixed. > > > > I am perfectly happy if Balder is running a custom kernel. > > I am also happy if your kernel finds good use for the compression and > deflation code, perhaps fiddling with microcode can be of use to make > sure there is no instruction or data prefetch involved. > > Many interesting points about the immediate consequences for the code, > perhapts its re-used and touching too many things?
To summarize for the public, Balder is insinuating that the PPP (historical CSLIP) compression code might be a security risk; apparently to bolster his case that we should remove it from the kernel because it (maybe) harms his strange usage case. Your proposed change will go nowhere, and increasing rhetoric is not helping the case. Balder, please got shove a fork or spoon into your eye and leave us alone. Furthermore if perforate both eyes, you won't need to see the code again!!!
