linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] Add CONFIG_VFAT_NO_CREATE_WITH

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Mon, 4 May 2009 19:06:37 +0200
From:	Olivier Galibert <galibert@...ox.com>
To:	linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Add CONFIG_VFAT_NO_CREATE_WITH_LONGNAMES option

On Mon, May 04, 2009 at 09:30:20AM -0700, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> When all of the pieces are public how can having secret veiled reasons
> make sense?

Because knowingly violating a patent triples the damages, among other
things.

There's a persistent rumor that a valid microsoft US software patent
exists that covers the standard method of handling long file names on
FAT filesystems.  It seems that such a patent is used by microsoft in
litigations, the latest being against tomtom.  I think all of these
litigations have been settled, but I can easily be wrong.

I have no idea whether such a patent actually exists, and even knowing
the reference (I don't) I am not competent to judge what it covers or
whether it would actually hold up in court.

But knowingly violating a patent is consider way worse in US courts
than simple independant recreation.  So I guess the knowingly part is
what the "you need a local lawyer" crowd tries to avoid.

  OG.

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/