Re: [PATCH] SUNRPC: Add a check for gss_release_msg

From: Leon Romanovsky <leon@kernel.org>
To: Trond Myklebust <trondmy@hammerspace.com>
Cc: "a.shelat@northeastern.edu" <a.shelat@northeastern.edu>,
	"davem@davemloft.net" <davem@davemloft.net>,
	"gregkh@linuxfoundation.org" <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
	"chuck.lever@oracle.com" <chuck.lever@oracle.com>,
	"dwysocha@redhat.com" <dwysocha@redhat.com>,
	"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	"kuba@kernel.org" <kuba@kernel.org>,
	"sudipm.mukherjee@gmail.com" <sudipm.mukherjee@gmail.com>,
	"bfields@fieldses.org" <bfields@fieldses.org>,
	"anna.schumaker@netapp.com" <anna.schumaker@netapp.com>,
	"pakki001@umn.edu" <pakki001@umn.edu>,
	"linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org" <linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org>,
	"netdev@vger.kernel.org" <netdev@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] SUNRPC: Add a check for gss_release_msg
Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2021 16:20:46 +0300	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <YIAmrgZ4Bnqo/nmI@unreal> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <6530850bc6f0341d1f2d5043ba1dd04e242cff66.camel@hammerspace.com>

On Wed, Apr 21, 2021 at 01:11:03PM +0000, Trond Myklebust wrote:
> On Wed, 2021-04-21 at 15:19 +0300, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 21, 2021 at 11:58:08AM +0000, Shelat, Abhi wrote:
> > > > > 
> > > > > > > They introduce kernel bugs on purpose. Yesterday, I took a
> > > > > > > look on 4
> > > > > > > accepted patches from Aditya and 3 of them added various
> > > > > > > severity security
> > > > > > > "holes".
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > All contributions by this group of people need to be
> > > > > > reverted, if they
> > > > > > have not been done so already, as what they are doing is
> > > > > > intentional
> > > > > > malicious behavior and is not acceptable and totally
> > > > > > unethical.  I'll
> > > > > > look at it after lunch unless someone else wants to do it…
> > > > > 
> > > 
> > > <snip>
> > > 
> > > Academic research should NOT waste the time of a community.
> > > 
> > > If you believe this behavior deserves an escalation, you can
> > > contact the Institutional Review Board (irb@umn.edu) at UMN to
> > > investigate whether this behavior was harmful; in particular,
> > > whether the research activity had an appropriate IRB review, and
> > > what safeguards prevent repeats in other communities.
> > 
> > The huge advantage of being "community" is that we don't need to do
> > all
> > the above and waste our time to fill some bureaucratic forms with
> > unclear
> > timelines and results.
> > 
> > Our solution to ignore all @umn.edu contributions is much more
> > reliable
> > to us who are suffering from these researchers.
> > 
> 
> <shrug>That's an easy thing to sidestep by just shifting to using a
> private email address.</shrug>
> 
> There really is no alternative for maintainers other than to always be
> sceptical of patches submitted by people who are not known and trusted
> members of the community, and to scrutinise those patches with more
> care.

Right, my guess is that many maintainers failed in the trap when they
saw respectful address @umn.edu together with commit message saying
about "new static analyzer tool".

The mental bias here is to say that "oh, another academic group tries
to reinvent the wheel, looks ok".

Thanks

> 
> -- 
> Trond Myklebust
> Linux NFS client maintainer, Hammerspace
> trond.myklebust@hammerspace.com
> 
> 