[deleted]
“They introduce kernel bugs on purpose”
151–160 of 1001 posts
Re: “They introduce kernel bugs on purpose”
#152I'll give you one guess nation states do.
Re: “They introduce kernel bugs on purpose”
#153Researcher(s) shows that it's relatively not hard to introduce bugs in kernel HN: let's hate researcher(s) instead of process Wow. Assume good faith, I guess?
Wasting the time of random open source maintainers who have not consented to your experiment to try to get your paper published is highly unethical; I don't see why this is a bad faith interpretation.
State-level actors / Nation wide actors (fancy terms lately, heh) will not ask anyone for consent
Re: “They introduce kernel bugs on purpose”
#154Later down thread from Greg K-H: > Because of this, I will now have to ban all future contributions from your University. Understandable from gkh, but I feel sorry for any unrelated research happening at University of Minnesota. EDIT: Searching through the source code[1] reveals contributions to the kernel from umn.edu emails in the form of an AppleTalk driver and support for the kernel on PowerPC architectures. In t…
Forking the kernel should be sufficient for research.
Re: “They introduce kernel bugs on purpose”
#155As a user of the linux kernel, I feel legal action against the "researchers" should be pursued.
I feel somewhat similar. Since I am using Linux, they ultimately were trying to break the security of my computers. If I do that with any company without their consent, I can easily end up in jail.
Re: “They introduce kernel bugs on purpose”
#156Later down thread from Greg K-H: > Because of this, I will now have to ban all future contributions from your University. Understandable from gkh, but I feel sorry for any unrelated research happening at University of Minnesota. EDIT: Searching through the source code[1] reveals contributions to the kernel from umn.edu emails in the form of an AppleTalk driver and support for the kernel on PowerPC architectures. In t…
I find it hard to believe this research passed IRB.
Re: “They introduce kernel bugs on purpose”
#157Later down thread from Greg K-H: > Because of this, I will now have to ban all future contributions from your University. Understandable from gkh, but I feel sorry for any unrelated research happening at University of Minnesota. EDIT: Searching through the source code[1] reveals contributions to the kernel from umn.edu emails in the form of an AppleTalk driver and support for the kernel on PowerPC architectures. In t…
> I think all patches have come from people currently being advised by Kangjie Liu[3] or Liu himself dating back to Dec 2018 New plan: Show up at Liu's house with a lock picking kit while he's away at work, pick the front door and open it, but don't enter. Send him a photo, "hey, just testing, bro! Legitimate security research!"
If they wanted to do security research, they could have done so in the form of asking the reviewers to help; send them a patch and ask 'Is this something you would accept?', instead of intentionally sending malicious commits and causing static on the commit tree and mailing lists.
Re: “They introduce kernel bugs on purpose”
#158This is ridiculously unethical research. Despite the positive underlying reasons treating someone as a lab rat (in this case maintainers reviewing PRs) feels almost sociopathic.
> Despite the positive underlying reasons
I think that is thinking too kind of them. Sociopaths are often very well-versed to give "reasons" about what they do, but at the core it is powerplay.
Re: “They introduce kernel bugs on purpose”
#159Later down thread from Greg K-H: > Because of this, I will now have to ban all future contributions from your University. Understandable from gkh, but I feel sorry for any unrelated research happening at University of Minnesota. EDIT: Searching through the source code[1] reveals contributions to the kernel from umn.edu emails in the form of an AppleTalk driver and support for the kernel on PowerPC architectures. In t…
seems extreme. one unethical researcher blocks work for others just because they happen to work at the same employer? they might not even know the author of the paper...
It is an extreme response to an extreme problem. If the other researchers don't like the situation? They are free to raise the problem to the university and have the university clean up the mess they obviously have.
Re: “They introduce kernel bugs on purpose”
#160It's funny. When someone like RMS or ESR or (formerly) Torvalds is "disrespectful" to open source maintainers, this is called "tough love", but when someone else does it, it's screamed about like it's some kind of high crime, with calls to permanently cancel access for all people even loosely related to the original offender.
I don't see how this is related. Being rude in tone, and wasting someone's time, are different things. You make it sound like they are the same.
But the opposite of what you propose is true. The maintainers are annoyed by others wasting their time in other cases as well as in this case - it's coherent behavior. And in my opinion, it's sensible to be annoyed when someone wasted your time - be it by lazily made patches or by intentionally broken patches.