4 ms·

There's two separate research groups involved in this, and while the one that most recently submitted patches did nothing wrong the one behind the "hypocrite co

There's two separate research groups involved in this, and while the one that most recently submitted patches did nothing wrong the one behind the "hypocrite commits" did.

mewse 6y ago
"separate" if you ignore that they have the same faculty advisor.
- staticassertion 6y ago
  So what? Who cares if they do? Static analysis fixes, whether they're good or bad, are harmless and not malicious. Greg attributed malice to them. I'm sure many advisors have tons of students contributing to the Kernel or other projects, every single year.
  - dragonwriter 6y ago
    > So what? For research groups, the faculty advisor is the responsible party; once that party has been shown to act maliciously, extra scrutiny is warranted, unless there is some evidence that durable reform has occurred. (The same might be said less strongly of the institutional source, as well.) > I'm sure many advisors have tons of students contributing to the Kernel or other projects, every single year. And virtually all of them have not been—either advisor or institution—responsible for malicious kernel patches. Actions have consequences.
    - staticassertion 6y ago
      > once that party has been shown to act maliciously, extra scrutiny is warranted It's nonsense that they acted maliciously. The original research was handled terribly, but it was not malicious. They intended to help, not hurt, even if they did so very poorly. Further, that is one advisor, whose name is not being dragged. Aditya's name, however, is, thanks to Greg's slanderous comments. https://twitter.com/trishalynn/status/1385410960278491137 https://twitter.com/trishalynn/status/1385410960278491137 "I am disgusted by the actions of Aditya Pakki" https://twitter.com/hedleyroos/status/1386290204298735617 https://twitter.com/hedleyroos/status/1386290204298735617 "Aditya Pakki is going to have a hard time finding employment." (this one directly retweeted Greg's post) https://twitter.com/_mackal/status/1384910754151866370 https://twitter.com/_mackal/status/1384910754151866370 "The simple fact that Aditya Pakki is so butt hurt proves this wasn't in good faith and their only reason for doing it is to shit out another hit piece. That email you quoted is fucking insane." https://twitter.com/BeardyNotes/status/1384900450059788288 https://twitter.com/BeardyNotes/status/1384900450059788288 "Sleazeballs like Aditya Pakki should be fired and disbarred from doing any "research" anywhere in the world!" https://twitter.com/seakoz/status/1384895697414148096 https://twitter.com/seakoz/status/1384895697414148096 "Aditya Pakki will forever be googleable as the guy who deliberately tried to make Linux insecure." Does that seem right to you? Are these the "consequences" you think are justified, because Aditya was trying to add legitimate patches for a tool he was working on to contribute to the kernel? Greg should publicly apologize to Aditya.
      - asddubs 6y ago
        all of those examples are randos with single digit likes/retweets
- boomboomsubban 6y ago
  That faculty advisor has presumably done nothing wrong as part of this group either.
staticassertion 6y ago
> and while the one that most recently submitted patches did nothing wrong the one behind the "hypocrite commits" did. The commit that spurred this whole mess was for static analysis research, totally unrelated to the previous commits from quite some time ago related to bugdoors in the kernel. Greg's reaction was to the static analysis commits, and he alleged (in an incredibly insulting and hostile way) that they were made with malice.
- boomboomsubban 6y ago
  His reaction was that after the previous incident, from a year ago, he couldn't blindly trust something coming from the same source. That group has done no wrong, but they are barely a part of this overall discussion.
  - staticassertion 6y ago
    > he couldn't blindly trust something coming from the same source. This is not the same source! It's the same UNIVERSITY, which has thousands of students every year. And the source of the bugs wasn't even from university addresses, it was from random gmail addresses. Aditya submitted LEGITIMATE patches based on his static analysis tool. He is being slandered because people won't take 5 seconds to learn the facts.
    - boomboomsubban 6y ago
      From what I've been told, UMN aren't active kernel contributors, not making a submission between 2014 and the relevant paper in 2020. >And the source of the bugs wasn't even from university addresses, it was from random gmail addresses. I don't know why this really matters. They could be running a similar experiment this time pretending UMN was compromised. I'm not sure who Pakki is, if he's not part of the first research group at all it is truly unfortunate he is receiving the blame for it. If he was, the internet's reaction is still unwarranted but frankly typical. I don't see how Kroah-Hartman is at fault though.
      - 6y ago

There's two separate research groups involved in this, and while the one that most recently submitted patches did nothing wrong the one behind the "hypocrite commits" did.

mewse 6y ago

"separate" if you ignore that they have the same faculty advisor.

staticassertion 6y ago
So what? Who cares if they do? Static analysis fixes, whether they're good or bad, are harmless and not malicious. Greg attributed malice to them. I'm sure many advisors have tons of students contributing to the Kernel or other projects, every single year.
- dragonwriter 6y ago
  > So what? For research groups, the faculty advisor is the responsible party; once that party has been shown to act maliciously, extra scrutiny is warranted, unless there is some evidence that durable reform has occurred. (The same might be said less strongly of the institutional source, as well.) > I'm sure many advisors have tons of students contributing to the Kernel or other projects, every single year. And virtually all of them have not been—either advisor or institution—responsible for malicious kernel patches. Actions have consequences.
  - staticassertion 6y ago
    > once that party has been shown to act maliciously, extra scrutiny is warranted It's nonsense that they acted maliciously. The original research was handled terribly, but it was not malicious. They intended to help, not hurt, even if they did so very poorly. Further, that is one advisor, whose name is not being dragged. Aditya's name, however, is, thanks to Greg's slanderous comments. https://twitter.com/trishalynn/status/1385410960278491137 https://twitter.com/trishalynn/status/1385410960278491137 "I am disgusted by the actions of Aditya Pakki" https://twitter.com/hedleyroos/status/1386290204298735617 https://twitter.com/hedleyroos/status/1386290204298735617 "Aditya Pakki is going to have a hard time finding employment." (this one directly retweeted Greg's post) https://twitter.com/_mackal/status/1384910754151866370 https://twitter.com/_mackal/status/1384910754151866370 "The simple fact that Aditya Pakki is so butt hurt proves this wasn't in good faith and their only reason for doing it is to shit out another hit piece. That email you quoted is fucking insane." https://twitter.com/BeardyNotes/status/1384900450059788288 https://twitter.com/BeardyNotes/status/1384900450059788288 "Sleazeballs like Aditya Pakki should be fired and disbarred from doing any "research" anywhere in the world!" https://twitter.com/seakoz/status/1384895697414148096 https://twitter.com/seakoz/status/1384895697414148096 "Aditya Pakki will forever be googleable as the guy who deliberately tried to make Linux insecure." Does that seem right to you? Are these the "consequences" you think are justified, because Aditya was trying to add legitimate patches for a tool he was working on to contribute to the kernel? Greg should publicly apologize to Aditya.
    - asddubs 6y ago
      all of those examples are randos with single digit likes/retweets
boomboomsubban 6y ago
That faculty advisor has presumably done nothing wrong as part of this group either.

staticassertion 6y ago

> and while the one that most recently submitted patches did nothing wrong the one behind the "hypocrite commits" did. The commit that spurred this whole mess was for static analysis research, totally unrelated to the previous commits from quite some time ago related to bugdoors in the kernel. Greg's reaction was to the static analysis commits, and he alleged (in an incredibly insulting and hostile way) that they were made with malice.

boomboomsubban 6y ago
His reaction was that after the previous incident, from a year ago, he couldn't blindly trust something coming from the same source. That group has done no wrong, but they are barely a part of this overall discussion.
- staticassertion 6y ago
  > he couldn't blindly trust something coming from the same source. This is not the same source! It's the same UNIVERSITY, which has thousands of students every year. And the source of the bugs wasn't even from university addresses, it was from random gmail addresses. Aditya submitted LEGITIMATE patches based on his static analysis tool. He is being slandered because people won't take 5 seconds to learn the facts.
  - boomboomsubban 6y ago
    From what I've been told, UMN aren't active kernel contributors, not making a submission between 2014 and the relevant paper in 2020. >And the source of the bugs wasn't even from university addresses, it was from random gmail addresses. I don't know why this really matters. They could be running a similar experiment this time pretending UMN was compromised. I'm not sure who Pakki is, if he's not part of the first research group at all it is truly unfortunate he is receiving the blame for it. If he was, the internet's reaction is still unwarranted but frankly typical. I don't see how Kroah-Hartman is at fault though.
    - 6y ago