2 ms·

Kroah-Hartman saw a number of patches containing possibly critical bugs, and given past events he assumed they were malicious rather than merely low quality. He

Kroah-Hartman saw a number of patches containing possibly critical bugs, and given past events he assumed they were malicious rather than merely low quality. He soon seemed to realize the mistake, and instigated a second review. 99% of his reaction was related to the previous paper's actions, it's unfortunate that Pakki is getting the blame but from the first post Kroah-Hartman tried to deflect blame away from him.

staticassertion 6y ago
> but from the first post Kroah-Hartman tried to deflect blame away from him. Where are people getting this from? Greg literally, explicitly, accuses Aditya of malice. I have repeatedly quoted him doing so.
- boomboomsubban 6y ago
  >Your professor is playing around with the review process...
  - staticassertion 6y ago
    OK? Greg explicitly accuses Aditya.
    - boomboomsubban 6y ago
      He accuses him of doing what his professor told him to do, a deflection of blame. Even the "explicit" accusations you mention reference that he was not acting alone.
      - staticassertion 6y ago
        Aditya has nothing to do with the research where vulnerabilities were submitted to the kernel. Again, quoting for the millionth time, "> 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." YOU. The first word. In a response to Aditya. It's a false allegation, it's literally incorrect. Aditya was NOT one of the researchers involved in that previous work.
        boomboomsubban 6y ago
        >The first word Followed by "and your group," which is exactly what my last post said. And even if he was not part of the group that carried out the previous work, he would still be part of the UMN CS research program that "publicly admitted to sending known-buggy patches..." I've said multiple times it seems that Pakki is receiving far more blame than he deserves. He merely submitted bad patches and got defensive about the manner in which they were rejected.

staticassertion 6y ago

> but from the first post Kroah-Hartman tried to deflect blame away from him. Where are people getting this from? Greg literally, explicitly, accuses Aditya of malice. I have repeatedly quoted him doing so.

boomboomsubban 6y ago
>Your professor is playing around with the review process...
- staticassertion 6y ago
  OK? Greg explicitly accuses Aditya.
  - boomboomsubban 6y ago
    He accuses him of doing what his professor told him to do, a deflection of blame. Even the "explicit" accusations you mention reference that he was not acting alone.
    - staticassertion 6y ago
      Aditya has nothing to do with the research where vulnerabilities were submitted to the kernel. Again, quoting for the millionth time, "> 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." YOU. The first word. In a response to Aditya. It's a false allegation, it's literally incorrect. Aditya was NOT one of the researchers involved in that previous work.
      - boomboomsubban 6y ago
        >The first word Followed by "and your group," which is exactly what my last post said. And even if he was not part of the group that carried out the previous work, he would still be part of the UMN CS research program that "publicly admitted to sending known-buggy patches..." I've said multiple times it seems that Pakki is receiving far more blame than he deserves. He merely submitted bad patches and got defensive about the manner in which they were rejected.