Linux Kernel Summit discussions
 help / color / Atom feed
From: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
To: Tomasz Figa <tomasz.figa@gmail.com>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>,
	Roland Dreier <roland@kernel.org>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
	James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@hansenpartnership.com>,
	ksummit@lists.linux.dev
Subject: Re: [MAINTAINER SUMMIT] Rethinking the acceptance policy for "trivial" patches
Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2021 07:46:55 +0000
Message-ID: <YIEp77sA7bcg9q0z@zeniv-ca.linux.org.uk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <YIEgL6GHbWpGWReS@zeniv-ca.linux.org.uk>

On Thu, Apr 22, 2021 at 07:05:19AM +0000, Al Viro wrote:
> > > I wholeheartedly disagree.  Demonstrating this kind of "attack" has
> > > been long overdue, and kicked off a very important discussion.  Even
> > > more so as in this area malice is almost indistinguishable from normal
> > > incompetence.  I think they deserve a medel of honor.
> > >
> > 
> > Agreed with Christoph. We are talking here about a critical piece of
> > the software that is the foundation of security of the whole system.
> > That we have a problem with the volume of reviews has been a topic on
> > various conferences since years and my experience is that it hasn't
> > really improved. As a part of my Chromium work, I often find upstream
> > code with issues that make me really concerned about the quality of
> > the review it received. Not saying it applies to all subsystems of
> > course, but not limited to single special cases either.
> > 
> > That said, I think UMN should have done this in a more ethical way.
> > For example, someone from the kernel community could have been
> > involved as a supervisor, to prevent things from running out of
> > control and ending up as real exploits and also to facilitate a
> > clean-up after the experiment ends. Also the fact that they are
> > denying this now is concerning.
> 
> Three words: list of SHA1.  Posted once their experiment had been finished.
> AFAICS, they have *not* bothered to publish that, and when a paper mentions
> raising awareness, you really want to see the raw data.  Cf. "framing",
> "advocacy", "science by press conference", etc.

BTW, according to one of the authors, currently "All of the commits sent
by my students are in good faith to fix some bugs."  And apparently that
includes 0c85a7e87465.  OK, we'd all posted embarrassingly dumb patches
and some of those got merged, but normally once that becomes known
what follows is some expression of embarrassment and request to revert
the damn thing (or "here's the fix", but that obviously does not apply
in this case).  Nothing of that kind has happened in public, and if
revert request went straight to Linus, I'd expect that commit to have
been reverted by now.  It is not.

Possibilities:
	* that PhD student currently net.dead and had been since the first
responses appeared (Apr 9).  Contradicts known facts - the guy had net
access at least over the last several days.
	* PhD student in question is honestly unaware that retraction or
correction of known mistake in a publication is expected.  Possible, but
in that case his advisor is not doing him any favours by not informing
him of such expectations.
	* PhD student in question still believes that the patch is
not garbage.  Again, possible, but... with that level of illiteracy
I'd expect him to have run into trouble much earlier.
	* Professor is entirely honest, but the student in question is
not his.
	* Professor is not entirely honest.
	* Something else.

  reply index

Thread overview: 153+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2021-04-21 18:35 James Bottomley
2021-04-21 18:46 ` Christian Borntraeger
2021-04-21 18:51 ` Alexey Dobriyan
2021-04-21 18:53   ` Christian Borntraeger
2021-04-21 19:06 ` Al Viro
2021-04-21 19:14 ` James Bottomley
2021-04-21 19:22 ` Steven Rostedt
2021-04-21 19:26   ` Kees Cook
2021-04-21 19:32   ` Roland Dreier
2021-04-21 19:55     ` Julia Lawall
2021-04-21 20:28       ` Stephen Hemminger
2021-04-21 20:37         ` Julia Lawall
2021-04-21 20:45           ` Steven Rostedt
2021-04-21 20:50             ` Julia Lawall
2021-04-21 21:03               ` Jiri Kosina
2021-04-21 21:37           ` James Morris
2021-04-22  7:34             ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2021-04-22  7:51               ` Mike Rapoport
2021-04-22  8:45                 ` Christian Brauner
2021-04-22 15:27                   ` Steven Rostedt
2021-04-22  9:39                 ` Mauro Carvalho Chehab
2021-04-22  9:55               ` Mauro Carvalho Chehab
2021-04-22 12:01                 ` Leon Romanovsky
2021-04-22 12:26                   ` Mark Brown
2021-04-22 12:35                     ` Leon Romanovsky
2021-04-22 12:52                       ` Hans Verkuil
2021-04-22 13:33                       ` Mauro Carvalho Chehab
2021-04-22 13:42                         ` Leon Romanovsky
2021-04-22 12:18                 ` Leon Romanovsky
2021-04-22 15:38                   ` Shuah Khan
2021-04-23  9:06                     ` Mauro Carvalho Chehab
2021-04-23 17:17                       ` Leon Romanovsky
2021-04-23 22:41                       ` Shuah Khan
2021-04-22  5:59     ` Christoph Hellwig
2021-04-22  6:28       ` Tomasz Figa
2021-04-22  7:05         ` Al Viro
2021-04-22  7:46           ` Al Viro [this message]
2021-04-22  7:06         ` H. Peter Anvin
2021-04-22  7:05       ` Jiri Kosina
2021-04-22 16:05       ` Roland Dreier
2021-04-22 16:24         ` Krzysztof Kozlowski
2021-04-22 18:03       ` Al Viro
2021-04-22 22:35         ` Thomas Gleixner
2021-04-22 22:53           ` Laurent Pinchart
2021-07-20 16:26             ` Kernel sustainability (was Re: [MAINTAINER SUMMIT] Rethinking the acceptance policy for "trivial" patches) Daniel Vetter
2021-04-21 19:30 ` [MAINTAINER SUMMIT] Rethinking the acceptance policy for "trivial" patches Jiri Kosina
2021-04-21 20:28   ` Jiri Kosina
2021-04-21 22:18     ` Shuah Khan
2021-04-21 23:17       ` Guenter Roeck
2021-04-21 23:21         ` Shuah Khan
2021-04-21 19:47 ` Dan Carpenter
2021-04-22  9:34   ` Mauro Carvalho Chehab
2021-04-22  9:59     ` Johannes Berg
2021-04-22 10:52       ` Mauro Carvalho Chehab
2021-04-22 12:16         ` Mike Rapoport
2021-04-22 13:41           ` Mauro Carvalho Chehab
2021-04-22 20:15       ` Alexandre Belloni
2021-04-23  0:09         ` Randy Dunlap
2021-04-21 19:49 ` Alexandre Belloni
2021-04-22  2:05 ` Martin K. Petersen
2021-04-22  3:04   ` Joe Perches
2021-04-22 10:13     ` Mauro Carvalho Chehab
2021-04-22 12:07     ` Mark Brown
2021-04-22 16:42     ` Bart Van Assche
2021-04-22 17:58       ` Jiri Kosina
2021-04-22  4:21 ` Leon Romanovsky
2021-04-22  4:56   ` Al Viro
2021-04-22  5:52     ` Leon Romanovsky
2021-04-22  6:05     ` Christoph Hellwig
2021-04-22  6:03   ` Christoph Hellwig
2021-04-22  6:18     ` Leon Romanovsky
2021-04-22  9:20   ` Mauro Carvalho Chehab
2021-04-22 11:34     ` Leon Romanovsky
2021-04-22 13:22       ` Mark Brown
2021-04-22 13:47         ` Leon Romanovsky
2021-04-22 13:51           ` Mark Brown
2021-04-22 14:12         ` Mauro Carvalho Chehab
2021-04-22 14:51           ` Leon Romanovsky
2021-04-22 13:29       ` Steven Rostedt
2021-04-22 13:58         ` Leon Romanovsky
2021-04-22 14:20         ` Rob Herring
2021-04-23  6:04           ` Mauro Carvalho Chehab
2021-04-23  6:46             ` Joe Perches
2021-04-23  7:13               ` Mauro Carvalho Chehab
2021-04-23  7:20                 ` [PATCH RFC] scripts: add a script for sending patches Mauro Carvalho Chehab
2021-04-23 14:52                 ` Better tools for sending patches (was: Re: [MAINTAINER SUMMIT] Rethinking the acceptance policy for "trivial" patches) Doug Anderson
2021-04-23 16:03                   ` Mark Brown
2021-04-23 17:12                     ` Leon Romanovsky
2021-04-26 23:50                       ` Simon Glass
2021-04-22 12:53     ` [MAINTAINER SUMMIT] Rethinking the acceptance policy for "trivial" patches Konstantin Ryabitsev
2021-04-22 13:08       ` Leon Romanovsky
2021-04-22 13:27         ` Konstantin Ryabitsev
2021-04-22 13:41           ` Leon Romanovsky
2021-04-22 16:28           ` Serge E. Hallyn
2021-04-22 17:56       ` Leon Romanovsky
2021-04-22 18:05         ` backfilling threads with b4 (was: Re: [MAINTAINER SUMMIT] Rethinking the acceptance policy for "trivial" patches) Konstantin Ryabitsev
2021-04-23  7:19       ` [MAINTAINER SUMMIT] Rethinking the acceptance policy for "trivial" patches Greg KH
2021-04-23  7:31       ` Christian Brauner
2021-04-23 18:50         ` Konstantin Ryabitsev
2021-04-22 12:40   ` Mark Brown
2021-04-22 12:54     ` Mike Rapoport
2021-04-22 13:23       ` Mark Brown
2021-04-22 15:19         ` Steven Rostedt
2021-04-22 21:19           ` Thomas Gleixner
2021-04-22 21:36             ` Steven Rostedt
2021-04-22 22:39               ` Thomas Gleixner
2021-04-23  0:26                 ` Joe Perches
2021-04-23  6:15           ` Greg KH
2021-04-23  6:50             ` Dan Williams
2021-04-23  7:13             ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2021-04-23 14:41               ` Shuah Khan
2021-04-23  9:12             ` Michal Hocko
2021-04-22 14:51       ` Laurent Pinchart
2021-04-22 15:14         ` Mike Rapoport
2021-04-22 15:17           ` Laurent Pinchart
2021-04-22 15:35             ` Al Viro
2021-04-22 15:32           ` Shuah Khan
2021-04-22 10:35 ` Mauro Carvalho Chehab
2021-04-22 11:03   ` Sudip Mukherjee
2021-04-22 14:00     ` Steven Rostedt
2021-04-22 14:07       ` Jiri Kosina
2021-04-22 15:31         ` Sudip Mukherjee
2021-04-22 21:33           ` Thomas Gleixner
2021-04-22 20:28     ` Andrew Morton
2021-04-22 20:46       ` Steven Rostedt
2021-04-22 12:32   ` Martin K. Petersen
2021-04-22 15:11     ` Laurent Pinchart
2021-04-22 15:28     ` James Bottomley
2021-04-22 15:35       ` Johannes Berg
2021-04-22 15:36       ` Mark Brown
2021-04-22 15:40         ` James Bottomley
2021-04-23  9:27         ` Dan Carpenter
2021-04-22 13:24   ` Konstantin Ryabitsev
2021-04-22 14:31     ` Mauro Carvalho Chehab
2021-04-22 15:34   ` Shuah Khan
2021-04-22 15:42     ` James Bottomley
2021-04-22 15:48       ` James Bottomley
2021-04-22 15:52         ` Steven Rostedt
2021-04-22 16:08           ` Shuah Khan
2021-04-22 16:13           ` Jan Kara
2021-04-22 17:04             ` Steven Rostedt
2021-04-22 17:08             ` Martin K. Petersen
2021-04-23 11:16               ` Jan Kara
2021-04-23 12:57                 ` Mauro Carvalho Chehab
2021-04-23  7:58           ` Mauro Carvalho Chehab
2021-04-23 10:54             ` Greg KH
2021-04-23 17:09             ` Leon Romanovsky
2021-04-22 16:23         ` Konstantin Ryabitsev
2021-04-22 16:38       ` Bart Van Assche
2021-04-22 16:57         ` Leon Romanovsky
2021-04-22 18:03         ` Jiri Kosina
2021-04-22 21:26           ` Thomas Gleixner
2021-04-22 21:36             ` Jiri Kosina

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=YIEp77sA7bcg9q0z@zeniv-ca.linux.org.uk \
    --to=viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk \
    --cc=James.Bottomley@hansenpartnership.com \
    --cc=hch@infradead.org \
    --cc=ksummit@lists.linux.dev \
    --cc=roland@kernel.org \
    --cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
    --cc=tomasz.figa@gmail.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link

Linux Kernel Summit discussions

Archives are clonable:
	git clone --mirror https://lore.kernel.org/ksummit/0 ksummit/git/0.git

	# If you have public-inbox 1.1+ installed, you may
	# initialize and index your mirror using the following commands:
	public-inbox-init -V2 ksummit ksummit/ https://lore.kernel.org/ksummit \
		ksummit@lists.linux.dev
	public-inbox-index ksummit

Example config snippet for mirrors

Newsgroup available over NNTP:
	nntp://nntp.lore.kernel.org/dev.linux.lists.ksummit


AGPL code for this site: git clone https://public-inbox.org/public-inbox.git