I did not email him last week. IIRC we reached out ~2 years ago. He started this discussion on twitter so I continued it and asked for help. Instead of helping, he continued to insult, so ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Okay. @paxteam seems to believe differently, IIUC, and thinks that you never emailed. If you did, then I have to agree that you have limited resources, and it’s at least acceptable that you did what you did, given limited resources.

IIRC I started an email thread when he yelled at me over twitter the last time where I asked if we could meet in person to discuss (a couple of years ago?) ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ I did a quick search but don't keep very old email, so I may be wrong.

Also, I don't think our viewpoints are unmergable. These twitter discussions just end up being toxic.

what i find toxic is your personal attacks, lack of apologies when you're proven wrong and lack of responses to the apparently 'tough' questions i asked you (noexec.txt/FPValidator/your earlier RAP evaluation, etc in case you 'forgot').

My main point is that RAP cannot be reproduced or used in practice. So instead of arguing over Twitter for several days invest that time into a writeup and clean release and we'd all be happy? 👍

why do you keep spreading this disinformation? you patch in PaX, enable RAP in menuconfig and off you go. thousands of people managed to use it since 2016, one would hope with a PhD you can too. if you want something outside the kernel then you'll have to work with me.

Ok, please send me the user space plugin and a howto. My email is in my profile or on my website.

i don't distribute that (it's a commercial product for a reason), what i can do is run your tests and give you the information you need from the results.

That's unfortunately not going to work, we only evaluate open source implementations. But I invite you to provide the target set evaluation and do a write-up where you compare your precision against llvm-cfi