Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 21 Apr 2021 16:21:41 +0200 | From | Greg Kroah-Hartman <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 000/190] Revertion of all of the umn.edu commits |
| |
On Wed, Apr 21, 2021 at 06:56:49AM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote: > On 4/21/21 5:57 AM, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > I have been meaning to do this for a while, but recent events have > > finally forced me to do so. > > > > Commits from @umn.edu addresses have been found to be submitted in "bad > > faith" to try to test the kernel community's ability to review "known > > malicious" changes. The result of these submissions can be found in a > > paper published at the 42nd IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy > > entitled, "Open Source Insecurity: Stealthily Introducing > > Vulnerabilities via Hypocrite Commits" written by Qiushi Wu (University > > of Minnesota) and Kangjie Lu (University of Minnesota). > > > > Sigh. As if this wouldn't be a problem everywhere. > > > Because of this, all submissions from this group must be reverted from > > the kernel tree and will need to be re-reviewed again to determine if > > they actually are a valid fix. Until that work is complete, remove this > > change to ensure that no problems are being introduced into the > > codebase. > > > > This patchset has the "easy" reverts, there are 68 remaining ones that > > need to be manually reviewed. Some of them are not able to be reverted > > as they already have been reverted, or fixed up with follow-on patches > > as they were determined to be invalid. Proof that these submissions > > were almost universally wrong. > > > > I will be working with some other kernel developers to determine if any > > of these reverts were actually valid changes, were actually valid, and > > if so, will resubmit them properly later. For now, it's better to be > > safe. > > > > I'll take this through my tree, so no need for any maintainer to worry > > about this, but they should be aware that future submissions from anyone > > with a umn.edu address should be by default-rejected unless otherwise > > determined to actually be a valid fix (i.e. they provide proof and you > > can verify it, but really, why waste your time doing that extra work?) > > > > thanks, > > > > greg k-h > > > [ ... ] > > Revert "hwmon: (lm80) fix a missing check of bus read in lm80 probe" > > I see > > 9aa3aa15f4c2 hwmon: (lm80) fix a missing check of bus read in lm80 probe > c9c63915519b hwmon: (lm80) fix a missing check of the status of SMBus read > > The latter indeed introduced a problem which was later fixed with > > 07bd14ccc304 hwmon: (lm80) Fix missing unlock on error in set_fan_div() > > I guess that was part of the experiment. I don't see a problem with the > patch that is being reverted, but it is not extremely valuable either, > so I don't mind the revert. It is not valuable enough to re-apply it later > either. > > FWIW, I didn't see the problem with the second patch even when re-reviewing > it, which makes me suspect that they introduced missing-unlock problems on > purpose. It is important to keep that in mind when re-reviewing the patches. > Also, it may be part of the pattern that they introduced one or more valid > patches followed by a malicious one into the same subsystem on purpose.
Thanks for the review of these, much appreciated.
greg k-h
| |