5 ms·
> I agree that a lot of people have assumed that the current patches were malicious when they are not Who can blame them when Greg says things like "> You, an
by staticassertion 5y ago
> I agree that a lot of people have assumed that the current patches were malicious when they are not
Who can blame them when Greg says things like
"> You, and your group, have publicly admitted to sending known-buggy patches to see how the kernel community would react to them, and published a paper based on that work."
Greg is explicitly alleging, "You", that Aditya is being malicious. So of course the idiot readers will think so. He repeatedly alleges that Aditya is malicious.
This isn't just "the internet", it's Greg's false accusations, which he has yet to retract.
Look at the damage. I'm linking LKML, links from other maintainers, a quote from Linus, and facts and all of my posts are downvoted. Greg's bungling has caused a massive false perception.
> How is submitting patches which you know have bugs to a review process where they may end up being merged not count as "intending to cause harm"?
Because they did not intend to cause harm. They intended the opposite - to improve Linux security by demonstrating flaws in the process. Obviously they did a bad job of it, no one is defending that research, UMN apologized for it explicitly.
But they did not intend harm. They were not hoping to exploit those vulnerabilities. It was not malicious. It was negligent. I think it's very important to recognize the difference, critical really.
- koonsolo 5y agoAs they say, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. And their apology basically stated "I'm sorry that you don't understand we are trying to help you". Nowhere did they claim their research caused harm.
- staticassertion 5y agoTheir apology was excellent... > > We sincerely apologize for any harm our research group did to the > Linux kernel community. Our goal was to identify issues with the > patching process and ways to address them, and we are very sorry that > the method used in the “hypocrite commits” paper was inappropriate. As > many observers have pointed out to us, we made a mistake by not > finding a way to consult with the community and obtain permission > before running this study; we did that because we knew we could not > ask the maintainers of Linux for permission, or they would be on the > lookout for the hypocrite patches. While our goal was to improve the > security of Linux, we now understand that it was hurtful to the > community to make it a subject of our research, and to waste its > effort reviewing these patches without its knowledge or permission. > They explicitly admit fault and address what they did wrong and what they should have done better. You said that they didn't admit harm but the very first sentence is an acknowledgement and apology for the harm. In fact, they repeatedly address that they caused harm, and apologize: > we now understand that it was hurtful to the > community
- koonsolo 5y ago> apologize for any harm They didn't state they caused harm, they stated they apologize for "any" harm. > it was hurtful to the community Basically state "sorry to hurt your feelings", which I clearly pointed out in my comment. It's definitely not a "we are wrong" apology. This has a vibe of "we couldn't have done it any other way, and we still feel it was better. Sorry that you don't agree" Their letter of "apology" was already torn apart in the other thread at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26930056 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26930056
- staticassertion 5y agoWhat nonsense, they explicitly state they caused harm. "we now understand that it was hurtful to the > community to make it a subject of our research, and to waste its > effort reviewing these patches without its knowledge or permission." They EXPLICITLY state that they wasted community effort and explicitly, repeatedly acknowledge that they did things the wrong way.