I think we're agreeing loudly. I agree with you that Aditya is probably not malicious, just clumsy, to be clear. But I feel like it's probably reasonable for s

I think we're agreeing loudly. I agree with you that Aditya is probably not malicious, just clumsy, to be clear. But I feel like it's probably reasonable for someone in GregKH's position to have a higher threshold to clear than "probably" once the question is posed. I also wasn't trying to claim that "I promise I'm not part of that research" encompassed all the evidence, just remark that personal attestation of innocence would not have been a useful input at that juncture. I'm not sure, however, at what point an apology is merited now - anything significantly less than 100% of someone's patches seems like a poor choice given the small absolute number of bad patches that were used in that paper, but we're choosing by pseudorandom sample, but that's biased by how active/familiar the maintainers are with different parts of the code...etc. So I don't know what the right confidence level should be for concluding a prior judgment of "you might be malicious" was wrong. (Maybe enumerating+examining all the "malicious" commits remarked upon by Leon, since that's what sparked the fire?)