linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/3] x86/vmware: Add basic paravirt ops support

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: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1610262247030.5013@nanos>
Date:   Wed, 26 Oct 2016 22:47:42 +0200 (CEST)
From:   Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To:     Tim Mann <mann@...are.com>
cc:     Alexey Makhalov <amakhalov@...are.com>, corbet@....net,
        akataria@...are.com, mingo@...hat.com, hpa@...or.com,
        x86@...nel.org, time-lords@...are.com, monitor-list@...are.com,
        pv-drivers@...are.com, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] x86/vmware: Add basic paravirt ops support

On Wed, 26 Oct 2016, Tim Mann wrote:

> I believe our trademark guidelines say we aren't supposed to use VMware as a
> noun to mean a product, only to mean the company.  So we can say "running on
> VMware ESXi" or "running in a VMware virtual machine", but "running on VMware"
> is wrong.  There is supposedly some good legal reason for this related to
> keeping our trademark.

Please sort that out internally and resend the whole lot when this is
resolved.

Thanks,

	tglx