Spoiling Linux Kernel with "sanctioned" code

#1

Post by ValdikSS » Wed, Jun 10, 2026, 2:51 PM UTC

Spoiling Linux Kernel with "sanctioned" code
printserver.ink

Re: Spoiling Linux Kernel with "sanctioned" code

#2

Post by robobully » Wed, Jun 10, 2026, 4:41 PM UTC

This post is apparently not publicly shown on the main page for some reason.

Re: Spoiling Linux Kernel with "sanctioned" code

#3

Post by ValdikSS » Wed, Jun 10, 2026, 4:47 PM UTC

robobully wrote: post #2

This post is apparently not publicly shown on the main page for some reason.

Why should it be? It has low rating (yet).

Re: Spoiling Linux Kernel with "sanctioned" code

#4

Post by thefounder » Wed, Jun 10, 2026, 5:47 PM UTC

I guess the Russians will have to learn the Chinese way and perhaps the Chinese language as well?

Re: Spoiling Linux Kernel with "sanctioned" code

#5

Post by 1attice » Wed, Jun 10, 2026, 7:17 PM UTC

I've been thinking lately that what underpinned the FOSS golden age was not actually decentralized VCS and high-quality forges, nor even ZIRP, but rather peacetime.

After a period of branches and patchsets, full national hard forks are going to become de rigeur, and linux-derived OSes across the world are going to bloom necessarily, as we no longer have the kind of ambient trust required to collaborate across borders.

Look forward to Euro-linux, Sino-BSD, and I guess probably some sort of GCC-area build as well.

Patches will be accepted across national boundaries with only the highest scrutiny, which itself will likely be provided by nationalized AI platforms.

Gods I hate this era

Re: Spoiling Linux Kernel with "sanctioned" code

#6

Post by BrenBarn » Wed, Jun 10, 2026, 7:37 PM UTC

[flagged]

Re: Spoiling Linux Kernel with "sanctioned" code

#7

Post by mike_hock » Wed, Jun 10, 2026, 7:59 PM UTC

Obvious attack vector for Russia: Submit fixes to severe bugs that can't realistically be fixed any other way.

Re: Spoiling Linux Kernel with "sanctioned" code

#8

Post by dented42 » Wed, Jun 10, 2026, 9:24 PM UTC

BrenBarn wrote: post #6

[flagged]

I’m gonna hazard a guess and say that I don’t think the author has any troops anywhere, let alone in Ukraine.

Re: Spoiling Linux Kernel with "sanctioned" code

#9

Post by _user_account » Wed, Jun 10, 2026, 10:10 PM UTC

Yeah, it sucks.

> This adds ~1ms latency per transfer cycle for rapid bidirectional communication which leads to half the USB 1.1 speed for smaller packets at best.

Still, I don't think this patch should be applied /for everyone/. Maybe compile out-of-tree and load as a kernel module, if possible?

Re: Spoiling Linux Kernel with "sanctioned" code

#10

Post by ValdikSS » Thu, Jun 11, 2026, 12:58 AM UTC

_user_account wrote: post #9

Yeah, it sucks. > This adds ~1ms latency per transfer cycle for rapid bidirectional communication which leads to half the USB 1.1 speed for smaller packets at best. Still, I don't think this patch should be applied /for everyone/. Maybe compile out-of-tree and load as a kernel module, if possible?

The patch removes this latency and improves transfer speed, without any drawbacks.