> The problem is that getting things into small individually testable components
> is literally anathema to the Pax/grsecurity model.
no, you're wrong. how do you think we developed our code? did all the 8+ MB worth of it pop out of our head all at once? or more realistically, did we develop the features piece by piece, not unlike how upstream linux is developed?
> They have very specific "chunks" of functionality which are quite invasive, by design.
define invasive. linux itself has 'quite invasive' features too yet that didn't prevent them from being developed and upstreamed, so not sure what you were trying to imply here.
> This goes against the model the Linux kernel is developed, so the two development
> communities are simply mutually exclusive.
this narrative only exists in your head, not in reality. our work is as much upstreamable as any other kernel code that went in over the years (how else do you think some of it could get in already?), it's just that it can't be done in one's free time.
no, you're wrong. how do you think we developed our code? did all the 8+ MB worth of it pop out of our head all at once? or more realistically, did we develop the features piece by piece, not unlike how upstream linux is developed?
> They have very specific "chunks" of functionality which are quite invasive, by design.
define invasive. linux itself has 'quite invasive' features too yet that didn't prevent them from being developed and upstreamed, so not sure what you were trying to imply here.
> This goes against the model the Linux kernel is developed, so the two development > communities are simply mutually exclusive.
this narrative only exists in your head, not in reality. our work is as much upstreamable as any other kernel code that went in over the years (how else do you think some of it could get in already?), it's just that it can't be done in one's free time.