linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/4] Documentation/process: describe relaxing disclosing party NDAs

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]

Message-ID: <5e9f2343-1a76-125a-9555-ab26f15b4487@intel.com>
Date:   Wed, 11 Sep 2019 09:09:18 -0700
From:   Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
To:     Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, corbet@....net, sashal@...nel.org,
        ben@...adent.org.uk, tglx@...utronix.de, labbott@...hat.com,
        andrew.cooper3@...rix.com, tsoni@...eaurora.org,
        keescook@...omium.org, tony.luck@...el.com,
        linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, dan.j.williams@...el.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] Documentation/process: describe relaxing disclosing
 party NDAs

On 9/11/19 8:44 AM, Greg KH wrote:
> Intel had months of review time for this document before this was
> published.  Your lawyers had it and never objected to this lack of
> inclusion at all, and explictitly said that the document as written was
> fine with them.  So I'm sorry, but it is much too late to add something
> like this to the document at this point in time.

Hi Greg,

I'll personally take 100% of the blame for this patch.  I intended for
it to show our commitment to work *with* our colleagues in the
community, not to dictate demands.  Please consider this as you would
any other patch: a humble suggestion to address what I see as a gap.

Just to be clear: this addition came from me and only me.  It did not
come from any Intel lawyers and does not represent any kind of objection
to the process.  Intel's support for this process is unconditional and
not dependent on any of these patches.

> Oh, and cute use of the term, "timely manner", as if we are going to
> fall for that one again... 

Oh, I think that was actually a quote from an email from Thomas
explaining how he wanted these things dealt with.  If you change youer
mind and are open to improvements to this process in the future, I'd be
happy to change this to some kind of explicit deadline if that's preferred.