> * Running a primitive static code analysis tool that got overeager with correcting impossible bugs and not marking the generated patches as such. This is not

> * Running a primitive static code analysis tool that got overeager with correcting impossible bugs and not marking the generated patches as such. This is not a major time waster. It happens constantly - students everywhere are doing this, and the patches are accepted constantly. Further, while Greg classified the entirety of the analyzers findings as being useless, he was incorrect.[0] > The universities review board signed off on that mess, there is nothing proactive about banning a group of bad actors after the fact. In terms of the researchers submitting malicious patches it was done without edu addresses, which means that banning them solves nothing. [0] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/b43fc2b0-b3cf-15ab-7d3c-25c1f2a3e658@canonical.com/ https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/b43fc2b0-b3cf-15ab-7d3c-25c1f2a... In fact, most of the fixes fit into the bucket of "potentially useful".