Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 21 Apr 2021 18:16:07 +0300 | From | Laurent Pinchart <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 000/190] Revertion of all of the umn.edu commits |
| |
Hi Kangjie,
On Wed, Apr 21, 2021 at 09:44:52AM -0500, Kangjie Lu wrote: > On Wed, Apr 21, 2021 at 9:32 AM Jiri Kosina wrote: > > On Wed, 21 Apr 2021, Guenter Roeck wrote: > > > > 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. > > > > Right. > > > > > > 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 > > > > Therefore I'd like to ask Kangjie Lu (who is CCed here) to consider > > revising his statement in the attempted public clarification: > > > > "The experiment did not introduce any bug or bug-introducing commit into > > OSS." > > > > at [1] as it's clearly not true. Missing mutex unlock clearky is a bug > > introduced by this experiment. > > Hi everyone, > > I am so sorry for the concerns. I fully understand why the community is > angry. Please allow me to have a very quick response, as Jiri requested. We > will provide a detailed explanation later. > > These are two different projects. The one published at IEEE S&P 2021 has > completely finished in November 2020. My student Aditya is working on a new > project that is to find bugs introduced by bad patches. Please do not link > these two projects together. I am sorry that his new patches are not > correct either. He did not intentionally make the mistake.
Do you have a list of all known bad commits ? Not that we shouldn't revert the other ones as well, but having a list of bad ones would be useful when reviewing commits individually to see which ones may actually be correct.
> > [1] https://www-users.cs.umn.edu/~kjlu/
-- Regards,
Laurent Pinchart
| |