From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.8 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A5EC8C433B4 for ; Thu, 22 Apr 2021 05:51:37 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5FDE161425 for ; Thu, 22 Apr 2021 05:51:37 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S230128AbhDVFwK (ORCPT ); Thu, 22 Apr 2021 01:52:10 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:34632 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S229533AbhDVFwI (ORCPT ); Thu, 22 Apr 2021 01:52:08 -0400 Received: from zeniv-ca.linux.org.uk (zeniv-ca.linux.org.uk [IPv6:2607:5300:60:148a::1]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6DD23C06174A for ; Wed, 21 Apr 2021 22:51:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from viro by zeniv-ca.linux.org.uk with local (Exim 4.94 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1lZSFL-007EQm-Jb; Thu, 22 Apr 2021 05:51:27 +0000 Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2021 05:51:27 +0000 From: Al Viro To: Greg Kroah-Hartman Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Linus Torvalds , Aditya Pakki , Kangjie Lu , Qiushi Wu , x86@kernel.org, Bjorn Helgaas , "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Arnd Bergmann , David Airlie , Michael Turquette , Bjorn Andersson , Linus Walleij , Bartosz Golaszewski , Daniel Vetter , Jean Delvare , Guenter Roeck , Jiri Kosina , Will Deacon , Laurent Pinchart , Jakub Kicinski , "David S. Miller" , Johan Hovold , Jiri Slaby , Pablo Neira Ayuso , Johannes Berg , Takashi Iwai Subject: Re: [PATCH 000/190] Revertion of all of the umn.edu commits Message-ID: References: <20210421130105.1226686-1-gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20210421130105.1226686-1-gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> Sender: Al Viro Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Apr 21, 2021 at 02:57:55PM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > I'll take this through my tree, so no need for any maintainer to worry > about this, but they should be aware that future submissions from anyone > with a umn.edu address should be by default-rejected unless otherwise > determined to actually be a valid fix (i.e. they provide proof and you > can verify it, but really, why waste your time doing that extra work?) Frankly, the last bit is nonsense. If nothing else, consider the situation when somebody from UMN (which is a lot bigger than the group in question, but hell with it - somebody really from that group) posts an analysis of a real bug, along with a correct fix. With valid proof of correctness. What should we do? Leave the bug in place? Unattractive, to put it mildly. Write a fix and try to make it different from theirs? Not always feasible. Write a fix without looking at theirs and commit it? And if it happens to coincide with theirs, then what? FWIW, I do believe their claims that they tried to avoid introducing bugs and creating problems in general. So did RT[F]M, for that matter. However, the very nature of their "experiment"[1] required deflecting review. With obvious effects... [1] I won't go into its value, relevance of threat model, etc. at the moment - proper comments on that paper will take more time than I'm likely to have during the next couple of weeks.