Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 21 Apr 2021 16:32:44 +0200 (CEST) | From | Jiri Kosina <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 000/190] Revertion of all of the umn.edu commits |
| |
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
| |