5 ms·

Dr. Lu’s research is asking dangerous, thoughtful questions. The answers are sort of unsurprising. It’s not ethical. As I read the discussion archive carefully

Dr. Lu’s research is asking dangerous, thoughtful questions. The answers are sort of unsurprising. It’s not ethical. As I read the discussion archive carefully: 1) A submits patch 2) G suggests a particular patch was “wasting his time”, and that he’s suspicious of this kind of submission from Dr. Lu and UofM. 3) Nearly a day later, A accuses G of ‘wild accusations, bordering on slander’. In fact, no one denies that what G claimed is in fact true - that Dr. Lu and his students had a history of submitting “hypocrite” patches. They published about it! But according to A, it’s G that is being ‘unwelcoming’ and ‘intimidating’, due to ‘preconceived biases’. To me, this is where it starts feeling dramatically personal in nature. 4) I don’t see the language in G’s response to (3) as nearly so personal as (3) itself. It does question A’s professionalism. I’m sympathetic. What was A thinking?

nuclearnice1 5y ago
> In fact, no one denies that what G claimed is in fact true What Greg claims w.r.t. Aditya seems to be false and highly damaging. Greg wrote: “You, and your group, have publicly admitted to sending known-buggy patches to see how the kernel community would react to them” It now appears that Aditya’s patch was submitted in good faith. Greg accused him of intentionally submitting bad patches. That accusation was false. Aditya’s is upset because a powerful figure in the Linux community had made false and damaging accusations against him. Aditya’s reputation has been damaged by Greg’s false accusations. Greg should apologize.
- xh-dude 5y ago
  Fair enough that Greg can’t know whether Aditya is playing a game. But when Greg says “You, and your group” - it’s surely not Greg’s responsibility to untangle the knot at this point. This comes after Aditya had the opportunity to recognize that Dr. Lu and UofM were on Greg’s radar. There was a window of opportunity for working out the details, having some situational awareness, detangling things. Instead, Aditya just hit back, in a personal and to my mind fairly repugnant way. I maintain he should have talked to Dr. Lu at this point because Dr. Lu could have sought a better resolution at this point. Everyone would be better off. Yeah, Greg seemed angry in response - I think that’s understandable. Should Greg apologize? Sure, why not. But from the skid marks on the road, I’m pretty convinced about who was driving unsafely here.
  - nuclearnice1 5y ago
    > surely not Greg’s responsibility to untangle the knot at this point. This is where we differ. Before you make a false permanent career damaging accusation you should do some basic checking if it’s true? Greg lost his temper and now can’t back down. He should have asked himself is it logical that a guy who has dozens of good commits over a period of a year is suddenly submitting known bad commits as part of a research paper that he is not an author of that was published months ago. > This comes after Aditya had the opportunity to recognize that Dr. Lu and UofM were on Greg’s radar. It’s not Aditya’s responsibility to read Greg’s mind. > Instead, Aditya just hit back, in a personal and to my mind fairly repugnant way. Those are strong accusations can you cite the text Aditya wrote that you believe is “repugnant” ? Aditya wrote : “ respectfully ask you to cease and desist from making wild accusations that are bordering on slander.” That’s extremely polite given Greg K H was spreading the phony and damaging story that Aditya was intentionally damaging the Linux kernel.
- pritambaral 5y ago
  > It now appears that Aditya’s patch was submitted in good faith. Citation needed. > Greg accused him of intentionally submitting bad patches. From GKH's response to Pakki's claims: They obviously were _NOT_ created by a static analysis tool that is of any intelligence, as they all are the result of totally different patterns, and all of which are obviously not even fixing anything at all. So what am I supposed to think here, other than that you and your group are continuing to experiment on the kernel community developers by sending such nonsense patches? When submitting patches created by a tool, everyone who does so submits them with wording like "found by tool XXX, we are not sure if this is correct or not, please advise." which is NOT what you did here at all. You were not asking for help, you were claiming that these were legitimate fixes, which you KNEW to be incorrect. A few minutes with anyone with the semblance of knowledge of C can see that your submissions do NOT do anything at all, so to think that a tool created them, and then that you thought they were a valid "fix" is totally negligent on your part, not ours. You are the one at fault, it is not our job to be the test subjects of a tool you create. > That accusation was false. The accusation is that either Aditya "KNEW" the fixes he claimed to be legitimate were incorrect, or he has not a "semblance of knowledge of C" to see that his submission do NOT do anything at all, or that he was "negligent" on his part. I've seen no evidence of this accusation being false.
  - nuclearnice1 5y ago
    > Citation needed. Scroll Up. Find https://lwn.net/Articles/854319/ https://lwn.net/Articles/854319/ point 2 Consider: Aditya is not an author on the hypocrite commits paper. Aditya admitted his “garbage” commit when made aware it was not correct. Aditya is author of other papers on static analysis. Aditya’s other commits have generally survived this bulk review. Aditya maintains his claims even as other members of UMN have explained their role in the hypocrite commits. Aditya’s commits come from a UMN address where as hypocrite commits came from gmail. It seems likely Aditya is a bad static analyst not a malicious committer. Greg’s accusations: > You, and your group, have publicly admitted to sending known-buggy patches [1] The “you” there is false. Aditya consistently denied being part of the research they has Greg so worked up. Greg also wrote: > Please stop submitting known-invalid patches. [2] The evidence above strongly suggests Aditya never did that. Greg KH has accused Aditya of submitting known buggy patches. Aditya did not do that. Greg should apologize to Aditya for the false accusation. [1] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-nfs/YH%2FfM%2FTsbmcZzwnX@kroah.com/ https://lore.kernel.org/linux-nfs/YH%2FfM%2FTsbmcZzwnX@kroah... [2] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-nfs/YH5%2Fi7OvsjSmqADv@kroah.com/ https://lore.kernel.org/linux-nfs/YH5%2Fi7OvsjSmqADv@kroah.c...

nuclearnice1 5y ago

> In fact, no one denies that what G claimed is in fact true What Greg claims w.r.t. Aditya seems to be false and highly damaging. Greg wrote: “You, and your group, have publicly admitted to sending known-buggy patches to see how the kernel community would react to them” It now appears that Aditya’s patch was submitted in good faith. Greg accused him of intentionally submitting bad patches. That accusation was false. Aditya’s is upset because a powerful figure in the Linux community had made false and damaging accusations against him. Aditya’s reputation has been damaged by Greg’s false accusations. Greg should apologize.

xh-dude 5y ago
Fair enough that Greg can’t know whether Aditya is playing a game. But when Greg says “You, and your group” - it’s surely not Greg’s responsibility to untangle the knot at this point. This comes after Aditya had the opportunity to recognize that Dr. Lu and UofM were on Greg’s radar. There was a window of opportunity for working out the details, having some situational awareness, detangling things. Instead, Aditya just hit back, in a personal and to my mind fairly repugnant way. I maintain he should have talked to Dr. Lu at this point because Dr. Lu could have sought a better resolution at this point. Everyone would be better off. Yeah, Greg seemed angry in response - I think that’s understandable. Should Greg apologize? Sure, why not. But from the skid marks on the road, I’m pretty convinced about who was driving unsafely here.
- nuclearnice1 5y ago
  > surely not Greg’s responsibility to untangle the knot at this point. This is where we differ. Before you make a false permanent career damaging accusation you should do some basic checking if it’s true? Greg lost his temper and now can’t back down. He should have asked himself is it logical that a guy who has dozens of good commits over a period of a year is suddenly submitting known bad commits as part of a research paper that he is not an author of that was published months ago. > This comes after Aditya had the opportunity to recognize that Dr. Lu and UofM were on Greg’s radar. It’s not Aditya’s responsibility to read Greg’s mind. > Instead, Aditya just hit back, in a personal and to my mind fairly repugnant way. Those are strong accusations can you cite the text Aditya wrote that you believe is “repugnant” ? Aditya wrote : “ respectfully ask you to cease and desist from making wild accusations that are bordering on slander.” That’s extremely polite given Greg K H was spreading the phony and damaging story that Aditya was intentionally damaging the Linux kernel.
pritambaral 5y ago
> It now appears that Aditya’s patch was submitted in good faith. Citation needed. > Greg accused him of intentionally submitting bad patches. From GKH's response to Pakki's claims: They obviously were _NOT_ created by a static analysis tool that is of any intelligence, as they all are the result of totally different patterns, and all of which are obviously not even fixing anything at all. So what am I supposed to think here, other than that you and your group are continuing to experiment on the kernel community developers by sending such nonsense patches? When submitting patches created by a tool, everyone who does so submits them with wording like "found by tool XXX, we are not sure if this is correct or not, please advise." which is NOT what you did here at all. You were not asking for help, you were claiming that these were legitimate fixes, which you KNEW to be incorrect. A few minutes with anyone with the semblance of knowledge of C can see that your submissions do NOT do anything at all, so to think that a tool created them, and then that you thought they were a valid "fix" is totally negligent on your part, not ours. You are the one at fault, it is not our job to be the test subjects of a tool you create. > That accusation was false. The accusation is that either Aditya "KNEW" the fixes he claimed to be legitimate were incorrect, or he has not a "semblance of knowledge of C" to see that his submission do NOT do anything at all, or that he was "negligent" on his part. I've seen no evidence of this accusation being false.
- nuclearnice1 5y ago
  > Citation needed. Scroll Up. Find https://lwn.net/Articles/854319/ https://lwn.net/Articles/854319/ point 2 Consider: Aditya is not an author on the hypocrite commits paper. Aditya admitted his “garbage” commit when made aware it was not correct. Aditya is author of other papers on static analysis. Aditya’s other commits have generally survived this bulk review. Aditya maintains his claims even as other members of UMN have explained their role in the hypocrite commits. Aditya’s commits come from a UMN address where as hypocrite commits came from gmail. It seems likely Aditya is a bad static analyst not a malicious committer. Greg’s accusations: > You, and your group, have publicly admitted to sending known-buggy patches [1] The “you” there is false. Aditya consistently denied being part of the research they has Greg so worked up. Greg also wrote: > Please stop submitting known-invalid patches. [2] The evidence above strongly suggests Aditya never did that. Greg KH has accused Aditya of submitting known buggy patches. Aditya did not do that. Greg should apologize to Aditya for the false accusation. [1] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-nfs/YH%2FfM%2FTsbmcZzwnX@kroah.com/ https://lore.kernel.org/linux-nfs/YH%2FfM%2FTsbmcZzwnX@kroah... [2] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-nfs/YH5%2Fi7OvsjSmqADv@kroah.com/ https://lore.kernel.org/linux-nfs/YH5%2Fi7OvsjSmqADv@kroah.c...