From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr (mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.83]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0CC552F81 for ; Wed, 21 Apr 2021 20:50:40 +0000 (UTC) IronPort-HdrOrdr: =?us-ascii?q?A9a23=3AdHjS363DFT7/qYvKeF5GagqjBHokLtp033Aq?= =?us-ascii?q?2lEZdDV+dMuEm8ey2MkKzBOcskdzZFgMkc2NUZPwJE/02oVy5eAqU4uKeCnDlC?= =?us-ascii?q?+WIJp57Y3kqgeBJwTb+vRG3altN4hyYeeAb2RStsrx7AmmH9tI+rDum8qVrNzT?= =?us-ascii?q?1nJ8CTxtApsA0y5CFg2ZHkdqLTMrObMFEvOni/Zvln6FcXQTYt/TPBY4Y9Q=3D?= X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.82,240,1613430000"; d="scan'208";a="504390214" Received: from 173.121.68.85.rev.sfr.net (HELO hadrien) ([85.68.121.173]) by mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 21 Apr 2021 22:50:39 +0200 Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2021 22:50:39 +0200 (CEST) From: Julia Lawall X-X-Sender: jll@hadrien To: Steven Rostedt cc: Stephen Hemminger , Roland Dreier , James Bottomley , ksummit@lists.linux.dev Subject: Re: [MAINTAINER SUMMIT] Rethinking the acceptance policy for "trivial" patches In-Reply-To: <20210421164519.4aa271b9@gandalf.local.home> Message-ID: References: <20210421152209.68075314@gandalf.local.home> <20210421132824.13a70f6c@hermes.local> <20210421164519.4aa271b9@gandalf.local.home> User-Agent: Alpine 2.22 (DEB 394 2020-01-19) X-Mailing-List: ksummit@lists.linux.dev List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII On Wed, 21 Apr 2021, Steven Rostedt wrote: > On Wed, 21 Apr 2021 22:37:55 +0200 (CEST) > Julia Lawall wrote: > > > The apology states that they didn't detect any vulnerabilities. They > > found three non exploitable bugs and submitted incorrect patches for them. > > When the patches received some positive feedback, they explained that the > > patches were incorrect and provided a proper fix. > > > > So they damaged trust, but not actually the Linux kernel... > > That's what they stated, but did any patch that they knew was incorrect > actually make it into the kernel? If so, then it's on them. No idea. The apology goes to great lengths to say that none did, but who knows. julia