3 ms·

The researchers already lied when they conducted the study. What you are proposing is that we now should trust them to tell us the extent of their previous dupl

by shkkmo 6y ago

The researchers already lied when they conducted the study. What you are proposing is that we now should trust them to tell us the extent of their previous duplicitousness. The most recent patch, which triggered the bad, has not been explained in good faith and it seems likely there were mistruths involved in that exchange as well. So while it is absolutely a waste of time to have to go back through those 190 commits, the responsibility for that falls squarely on the researchers who broke that trust, not on the Greg fro refusing to re-extend that trust in the face of continued sketchy behaviors.

nuclearnice1 6y ago
Why shouldn’t we trust them on the extent of their lies? Except three research commits, everything they have said has been true. Given how few of the 190 have turned out wrong, given the timeline of the research relative, given the existing static analysis paper. Did Aditya Pakki write two entire papers about static analysis as cover for continuing this hypocrite commit research? Or did Aditya Pakki submit a bad patch in good faith and Greg Kroah-Hartman misunderstood and then overreacted with this mass revert? I think the latter is more plausible. Otherwise, why stop at 190? The hypocrite commits came from Gmail. Logically, we can’t trust the researchers so we need to revert all Gmail commits. Wait they could Be infiltrating other universities, we should ban university commits everywhere. That would be a lot of work. So Greg picked a medium set of patches that expressed his power and outrage but had no real effect. The point is the particular set of commits he chose aren’t risky (by inspection we know they are good) and aren’t related to the hypocrite commits. So many innocent people are having their work thrown away because Greg is angry. Note that we have only seen the simple to revert patches. There are 68 complex umn patches that have not been reverted. I expect they won’t because this is mainly theater. The commits are good but Greg wants to be show how angry he is. My impression is we are just living through some kernel maintainer lashing out because he was embarrassed by the failed review process and mixed up the buggy static commits with the hypocrite research. Admitting you’re wrong is hard, so I don’t expect Greg to do that.
- shkkmo 6y ago
  Let's flip this on it's head and posit a counterfactual. Let's say that Greg does nothing and re-extend trust. Then vulnerabilities are exploited that exist due to additional bad patches submitted by this researcher. Greg would be rightly held to account for failing to his due diligence when he had clear evidence of malicious commits. So even if all the the commits are good and even if Greg believes that, he has still been forced into these actions by the violations of trust committed by the researchers. You are correct that the line as to what patches is a bit arbitrary, but it was always going to be. The research was conducted by the University so it seem the most reasonable place to draw the line to me. I have still yet to see any explanation from the researchers as to why that "bad patch" happened, didn't include a reference to the automated tool as required, or what tool it even was. I do think Greg is angry, but I don't think your insistence asscribing Greg's anger as his primary motivation is fair to him or consistent with HN guidelines on comments. I think you could make points about reverting commits without what seem to me like unnecessary personal attacks.

by shkkmo 6y ago

nuclearnice1 6y ago

Why shouldn’t we trust them on the extent of their lies? Except three research commits, everything they have said has been true. Given how few of the 190 have turned out wrong, given the timeline of the research relative, given the existing static analysis paper. Did Aditya Pakki write two entire papers about static analysis as cover for continuing this hypocrite commit research? Or did Aditya Pakki submit a bad patch in good faith and Greg Kroah-Hartman misunderstood and then overreacted with this mass revert? I think the latter is more plausible. Otherwise, why stop at 190? The hypocrite commits came from Gmail. Logically, we can’t trust the researchers so we need to revert all Gmail commits. Wait they could Be infiltrating other universities, we should ban university commits everywhere. That would be a lot of work. So Greg picked a medium set of patches that expressed his power and outrage but had no real effect. The point is the particular set of commits he chose aren’t risky (by inspection we know they are good) and aren’t related to the hypocrite commits. So many innocent people are having their work thrown away because Greg is angry. Note that we have only seen the simple to revert patches. There are 68 complex umn patches that have not been reverted. I expect they won’t because this is mainly theater. The commits are good but Greg wants to be show how angry he is. My impression is we are just living through some kernel maintainer lashing out because he was embarrassed by the failed review process and mixed up the buggy static commits with the hypocrite research. Admitting you’re wrong is hard, so I don’t expect Greg to do that.

shkkmo 6y ago
Let's flip this on it's head and posit a counterfactual. Let's say that Greg does nothing and re-extend trust. Then vulnerabilities are exploited that exist due to additional bad patches submitted by this researcher. Greg would be rightly held to account for failing to his due diligence when he had clear evidence of malicious commits. So even if all the the commits are good and even if Greg believes that, he has still been forced into these actions by the violations of trust committed by the researchers. You are correct that the line as to what patches is a bit arbitrary, but it was always going to be. The research was conducted by the University so it seem the most reasonable place to draw the line to me. I have still yet to see any explanation from the researchers as to why that "bad patch" happened, didn't include a reference to the automated tool as required, or what tool it even was. I do think Greg is angry, but I don't think your insistence asscribing Greg's anger as his primary motivation is fair to him or consistent with HN guidelines on comments. I think you could make points about reverting commits without what seem to me like unnecessary personal attacks.