From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.5 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIMWL_WL_HIGH, DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4E763C433B4 for ; Wed, 21 Apr 2021 14:32:53 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E870861458 for ; Wed, 21 Apr 2021 14:32:52 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S243593AbhDUOdY (ORCPT ); Wed, 21 Apr 2021 10:33:24 -0400 Received: from mail.kernel.org ([198.145.29.99]:56786 "EHLO mail.kernel.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S243227AbhDUOdY (ORCPT ); Wed, 21 Apr 2021 10:33:24 -0400 Received: by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 5061B61448; Wed, 21 Apr 2021 14:32:46 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1619015571; bh=dd3HvJVPIBFjv8CRf9O08UUhpaw3gLM9+mwfLrJFx9I=; h=Date:From:To:cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=O+eKtFL+OKhMOqDGQAgHQt8v2ijekLfH10jbVwVfIrQPb9/ig3Q5wlBSjV/l05IV8 R1C2FriS9EtFBMzyZjB+S2971HoCGrn2+AtkSQdKng4mjTY1j0R+SAiACW0KKyl6Go SfejY5cmAyHBN0ynVYCaE7B8cOCyDCsPdBPWKnlqldeBX65FHGZcFQzUyZCvhw6C/H 3MbeiFA7beIbouBU43WIroHVnu4quJfOGhz9hOhlwhRuw2wWwa5u4titNA3ZuK2bFt LMMBgG3n5nmuKoARguerWdkwW3614RGFMnrZIcRdQ2vd6BM37qnXCjvRV6qFuPaqLv YA08ueol+sKzw== Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2021 16:32:44 +0200 (CEST) From: Jiri Kosina To: Guenter Roeck cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Linus Torvalds , Aditya Pakki , Kangjie Lu , Qiushi Wu , x86@kernel.org, Bjorn Helgaas , "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Arnd Bergmann , David Airlie , Michael Turquette , Bjorn Andersson , Linus Walleij , Bartosz Golaszewski , Daniel Vetter , Jean Delvare , Will Deacon , Laurent Pinchart , Jakub Kicinski , "David S. Miller" , Johan Hovold , Jiri Slaby , Pablo Neira Ayuso , Johannes Berg , Takashi Iwai Subject: Re: [PATCH 000/190] Revertion of all of the umn.edu commits In-Reply-To: <4afeeb49-620d-5a9d-29fc-453f6118a944@roeck-us.net> Message-ID: References: <20210421130105.1226686-1-gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> <4afeeb49-620d-5a9d-29fc-453f6118a944@roeck-us.net> User-Agent: Alpine 2.21 (LSU 202 2017-01-01) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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. [1] https://www-users.cs.umn.edu/~kjlu/ Thanks, -- Jiri Kosina SUSE Labs