[Cerowrt-devel] KASLR: Do we have to worry about other arches than x86?
Joel Wirāmu Pauling
joel at aenertia.net
Thu Jan 4 16:52:21 EST 2018
Well as I've argued before Lede ideally should be using to Kernel
Namespaces (poor mans containers) for at a minimum the firewall and
per-interface routing instances.
The stuff I am running at home is mostly on cheap Atom board, so it's a
matter of squeezing out unneeded cruft on the platform. Also I don't want
to be admining centos/rhel servers at home.
On 5 January 2018 at 10:47, Dave Taht <dave.taht at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 4, 2018 at 1:44 PM, Joel Wirāmu Pauling <joel at aenertia.net>
> > On 5 January 2018 at 01:09, Jonathan Morton <chromatix99 at gmail.com>
> >> I don't think we need to worry about it too much in a router context.
> >> Virtual server folks, OTOH...
> >> - Jonathan Morton
> > Disagree - The Router is pretty much synonymous with NFV
> > ; I run my lede instances at home on hypervisors - and this is definitely
> > the norm in Datacentres now. We need to work through this quite
> Yes, the NFV case is serious and what I concluded we had most to worry
> about - before starting to worry about the lower end router chips
> themselves. But I wasn't aware that people were actually trying to run
> lede in that, I'd kind of expected
> a more server-like distro to be used there. Why lede in a NFV? Ease of
> configuration? Reduced attack surface? (hah)
> The only x86 chip I use (aside from simulations) is the AMD one in the
> apu2, which I don't know enough about as per speculation...
> Dave Täht
> CEO, TekLibre, LLC
> Tel: 1-669-226-2619
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Cerowrt-devel