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: <20090504164250.GF6740@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date:	Mon, 4 May 2009 09:42:50 -0700
From:	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:	"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>
Cc:	Dave Kleikamp <shaggy@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Matthew Wilcox <matthew@....cx>, 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>
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:
> Dave Kleikamp <shaggy@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> writes:
> 
> > That's for the maintainers to decide.  If they agree it has worth, maybe
> > it's a good idea to answer "How".
> 
> Al and Christoph said essentially the same thing and they generally
> are considered the general area filesystem maintainers.
> 
> This kind of thing does not appear to have come up before and
> so procedurally you guys are setting are attempting to set
> a precedent.
> 
> All I know is that doing it the way you are doing seems like a bad
> idea.  Not discussing things or even the reason you can't discuss them
> seems foolish and leaves no one satisfied.
> 
> Maybe there are good reasons but so far this whole thing just stinks.
> 
> When all of the pieces are public how can having secret veiled reasons
> make sense?
> 
> And if secret magic consultations with lawyers are going to be invoked
> I expect we should have a Signed-off-by from those lawyers.

;-)

Matthew's idea of checking with SFLC seems to me to have some merit.
I am looking into this from my end.  Of course, you and Al and Christoph
have just as much standing to ask SFLC as do I, and perhaps more.

							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/