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:	Tue, 05 May 2009 16:56:30 -0400
From:	Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu
To:	David Newall <davidn@...idnewall.com>
Cc:	Theodore Tso <tytso@....edu>,
	"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
	Chris Friesen <cfriesen@...tel.com>,
	Dave Kleikamp <shaggy@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Matthew Wilcox <matthew@....cx>,
	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>, tridge@...ba.org,
	Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>, Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>,
	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
	Steve French <smfrench@...il.com>,
	Ogawa Hirofumi <hirofumi@...l.parknet.co.jp>,
	linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Michael Tokarev <mjt@....msk.ru>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Olivier Galibert <galibert@...ox.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Add CONFIG_VFAT_NO_CREATE_WITH_LONGNAMES option

On Tue, 05 May 2009 20:39:05 +0930, David Newall said:

> Whether your patch goes in; whether it doesn't; it now seems there's
> something fishy about long filenames, and to be safe, perhaps it would
> be better to just turn off anything to do with FAT filesystems.  Who
> would care, right?  Unless i turns out that Linux no longer has the
> essential features.
> 
> Unless disrupting Linux was the point, and of course it isn't, it seems
> that full disclosure is required.  And that's before any patch should
> even be looked at.

Well, VFAT was in Windows for Workgroups 3.11 or so, back in 1982, and a patent
only runs 17 years.  So that clock's been ticking for quite some time.  Heck,
one could probably make a case that if Microsoft hasn't officially squawked
*yet* about code that infringes on anything that was released in '82, that
they've basically estoppell'd themselves.

Of course, some spoil-sport is going to come along and say that submarine
patents don't work that way. ;)



Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped