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]

Message-ID: <20090504161024.GC6740@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date:	Mon, 4 May 2009 09:10:24 -0700
From:	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:	Matthew Wilcox <matthew@....cx>
Cc:	"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.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>,
	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 Mon, May 04, 2009 at 09:55:06AM -0600, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Mon, May 04, 2009 at 08:38:15AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Mon, May 04, 2009 at 09:08:34AM -0600, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > > On Mon, May 04, 2009 at 07:39:19AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > > On Mon, May 04, 2009 at 07:21:19AM -0600, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > > > > Bringing the patch to a public mailing list is a waste of time until
> > > > > there's a reliable description of the problem you're trying to solve.
> > > > 
> > > > Please see the original patch.  It does describes what it is doing.
> > > 
> > > "What", but not "Why".  Which is only acceptable in GNU changelogs ;-)
> > 
> > ;-)
> > 
> > > Matthew Wilcox			Intel Open Source Technology Centre
> > 
> > Given your affiliation, you should have access to people with whom
> > you can have a meaningful conversation on the non-technical issues,
> > but without putting the Linux community at risk.
> 
> Indeed I do have access to lawyers.  But what use is that?  I could
> presumably get an opinion for myself that I would not then be able to
> share outside of Intel.

I am glad you understand our situation, then!  ;-)

> Can't you get the SFLC to issue a public legal opinion for you?  Or maybe
> the Linux Foundation?

I have no clue whether this would work, but it is certainly worth
exploring.  Thank you for the tip!!!

							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/