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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Date:	Mon, 4 May 2009 05:41:29 -0700
From:	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:	"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>
Cc:	tridge@...ba.org, Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>,
	Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>,
	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
	Matthew Wilcox <matthew@....cx>,
	Steve French <smfrench@...il.com>,
	Dave Kleikamp <shaggy@...ux.vnet.ibm.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>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Add CONFIG_VFAT_NO_CREATE_WITH_LONGNAMES option

On Sun, May 03, 2009 at 11:49:29PM -0700, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> writes:
> 
> > On Sun, May 03, 2009 at 10:42:52PM -0700, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> >> The only reason I can see for not ultimately talking about things publicly
> >> is if this is one company making shady deals with another company in which
> >> case I do not see why the maintenance burden for those decision should
> >> fall on the linux community as a whole.
> >
> > Another reason is that past experience would indicate that anything we
> > say in public and and will be used against us.
> 
> Which is a fine reason to be careful what you say, and to say
> reasonable things.

I am glad you agree.

>                    It is not a reason to submit a patch without
> justification.
> 
> If the reason for submitting a patch is not sufficiently good to be
> held to then it appears insufficient to merge the patch.
> 
> Why should the commit to a position at your urging that you aren't
> willing to commit to?

I am not sure that I correctly parsed these three sentences, but the
justification should be pretty clear to anyone who has been paying any
attention at all to recent industry news.

							Thanx, Paul
--
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/