This is precisely why PaX/RAP will never be used broadly. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ I openly document/evaluate an undocumented CFI implementation, share a pre-compiled plugin for reproduction (with links to GPL'd patch and kernel sources), then get threatened.
PaX Team @paxteam
7 Jan 2019
Replying to @paxteam @gannimo
i think you had enough time to fix the GPL violation in your repo. if you don't remedy it now, you'll leave me no choice but to ask github to take it down. this is your last warning.
2
4
9
you violated the GPL, plain and simple. explanation: gnu.org/licenses/old-license… . seriously, what's wrong with you and your hissy fits of late?
1
I assumed that the grsecurity homepage was a reasonable site to link to for source. As you claim otherwise, I've now included the patch in the repository. Note that I would only violate the GPL if the patch were no longer available on grsecurity. 🤗🙃
1
2
Replying to @gannimo
you violated the GPL, full stop. the grsec site had *no* arrangement with you to guarantee source availability 'from the same place'. read the FAQ i linked you to (its 2nd paragraph too), i think it doesn't take a PhD to understand it ;).

Jan 9, 2019 · 2:37 PM UTC