linux-kernel - Re: exfat filesystem

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, 9 Jul 2019 12:37:44 -0400
From:   Sasha Levin <sashal@...nel.org>
To:     Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
Cc:     Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>,
        Valdis Klētnieks <valdis.kletnieks@...edu>,
        Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        devel@...verdev.osuosl.org, kys@...rosoft.com
Subject: Re: exfat filesystem

On Tue, Jul 09, 2019 at 08:48:34AM -0700, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
>On Tue, Jul 09, 2019 at 11:30:39AM -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
>> On Tue, Jul 09, 2019 at 04:21:36AM -0700, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
>> > How does
>> > https://www.zdnet.com/article/microsoft-open-sources-its-entire-patent-portfolio/
>> > change your personal opinion?
>>
>> According to SFC's legal analysis, Microsoft joining the OIN doesn't
>> mean that the eXFAT patents are covered, unless *Microsoft*
>> contributes the code to the Linux usptream kernel.  That's because the
>> OIN is governed by the Linux System Definition, and until MS
>> contributes code which covered by the exFAT patents, it doesn't count.
>>
>> For more details:
>>
>> https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2018/oct/10/microsoft-oin-exfat/
>>
>> (This is not legal advice, and I am not a lawyer.)
>
>Interesting analysis.  It seems to me that the correct forms would be
>observed if someone suitably senior at Microsoft accepted the work from
>Valdis and submitted it with their sign-off.  KY, how about it?

Huh, that's really how this works? Let me talk with our lawyers to clear
this up.

Would this mean, hypothetically, that if MS has claims against the
kernel's scheduler for example, it can still assert them if no one from
MS touched the code? And then they lose that ability if a MS employee
adds a tiny fix in?

--
Thanks,
Sasha