4 ms·
The paper doesn't cite specific commits used. It's possible that any of the commits in stable are actually good commits and not part of the experiment. I suppor
by treesknees 6y ago
The paper doesn't cite specific commits used. It's possible that any of the commits in stable are actually good commits and not part of the experiment. I support the ban/revert, I'm just pointing out there's a 3rd option you didn't touch on.
- coriny 6y agoPatches with built-in bugs made it to stable: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-nfs/YIAta3cRl8mk%2FRkH@unreal/ https://lore.kernel.org/linux-nfs/YIAta3cRl8mk%2FRkH@unreal/.
- bmcahren 6y agoHere's the commit specifically identified by Leon Romanovsky as having a "built-in bug" https://github.com/torvalds/linux/commit/8e949363f017 https://github.com/torvalds/linux/commit/8e949363f017
- rigden33 6y agoThat commit is from Aditya Pakki who I don't believe is affiliated with the paper in question, whose only authors are Qiushi Wu, and Kangjie Lu.
- computershit 6y agoAditya Pakki is an RA under Kangjie Lu.
- rurban 6y agoWe have 4 people, with the students Quishu Wu and Aditya Pakki intruducing the faulty patches, and the 2 others, Prof Kangjie Lu and Ass.Prof Wengwen Wang patching vulnerabilities in the same area. Banning the leader seems ok to me, even if he produced some good fixes and SW to detect it. The only question is Wang who is now in Georgia, and was never caught. Maybe he left Lu at umn because of his questionable ethics.