Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

“They introduce kernel bugs on purpose”

lore.kernel.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 1001 posts

Re: “They introduce kernel bugs on purpose”

#11

Post by throwawaybbq1 »

kstenerud wrote: post #3
kdbg wrote: post #2

I don't think there have been any recent comments from anyone at U.Mn. So, back when the original research (happened last year) the following clarification was offered by Qiushi Wu and Kangjie Lu which atleast paints their research in somewhat better light: https://www-users.cs.umn.edu/~kjlu/papers/clarifications-hc.... That said the current incident seems to have gone beyond the limits of that one and is a new incid…

From their explanation: (3). We send the incorrect minor patches to the Linux community through email to seek their feedback. (4). Once any maintainer of the community responds to the email, indicating “looks good”, we immediately point out the introduced bug and request them to not go ahead to apply the patch. At the same time, we point out the correct fixing of the bug and provide our proper patch. In all the three…

Holy cow!! I'm a researcher and don't understand how they thought it would be okay to not do an IRB, and how an IRB would not catch this. The linked PDF by the parent post is quite illustrative. The first few paras seem to be downplaying the severity of what they did (did not introduce actual bugs into the kernel) but that is not the bloody problem. They experimented on people (maintainers) without consent and wasted their time (maybe other effects too .. e.g. making them vary of future commits from universities)! I'm appalled.

Re: “They introduce kernel bugs on purpose”

#12

Post by jeroenhd »

kstenerud wrote: post #3
kdbg wrote: post #2

I don't think there have been any recent comments from anyone at U.Mn. So, back when the original research (happened last year) the following clarification was offered by Qiushi Wu and Kangjie Lu which atleast paints their research in somewhat better light: https://www-users.cs.umn.edu/~kjlu/papers/clarifications-hc.... That said the current incident seems to have gone beyond the limits of that one and is a new incid…

From their explanation: (3). We send the incorrect minor patches to the Linux community through email to seek their feedback. (4). Once any maintainer of the community responds to the email, indicating “looks good”, we immediately point out the introduced bug and request them to not go ahead to apply the patch. At the same time, we point out the correct fixing of the bug and provide our proper patch. In all the three…

In any university I've ever been to, this would be a gross violation of ethics with very unpleasant consequences. Informed consent is crucial when conducting experiments.

If this behaviour is tolerated by the University of Minnesota (and it appears to be so) then I suppose that's another institution on my list of unreliable research.

I do wonder what the legal consequences are. Would knowingly and willfully introducing bad code constitute a form of vandalism?

Re: “They introduce kernel bugs on purpose”

#13

Post by Igorvelky »

pikzel wrote: post #6
Metacelsus wrote: post #5

Yikes, and what are they hoping to accomplish with this "research"?

Why don't you read the article to find out? https://github.com/QiushiWu/QiushiWu.github.io/blob/main/pap...

They are sending BUGS, and wasting time of people approving patches, in useless and idiotic manner

Re: “They introduce kernel bugs on purpose”

#14

Post by jan_Inkepa »

kstenerud wrote: post #3
kdbg wrote: post #2

I don't think there have been any recent comments from anyone at U.Mn. So, back when the original research (happened last year) the following clarification was offered by Qiushi Wu and Kangjie Lu which atleast paints their research in somewhat better light: https://www-users.cs.umn.edu/~kjlu/papers/clarifications-hc.... That said the current incident seems to have gone beyond the limits of that one and is a new incid…

From their explanation: (3). We send the incorrect minor patches to the Linux community through email to seek their feedback. (4). Once any maintainer of the community responds to the email, indicating “looks good”, we immediately point out the introduced bug and request them to not go ahead to apply the patch. At the same time, we point out the correct fixing of the bug and provide our proper patch. In all the three…

In this post they say the patches come from a static analyser and they accuse the other person of slander for their criticisms

> I respectfully ask you to cease and desist from making wild accusations that are bordering on slander.

> These patches were sent as part of a new static analyzer that I wrote and it's sensitivity is obviously not great. I sent patches on the hopes to get feedback. We are not experts in the linux kernel and repeatedly making these statements is disgusting to hear.

( https://lore.kernel.org/linux-nfs/YH%2FfM%2FTsbmcZzwnX@kroah... )

How does that fit in with your explanation?

Re: “They introduce kernel bugs on purpose”

#15

Post by jedimastert »

kstenerud wrote: post #3
kdbg wrote: post #2

I don't think there have been any recent comments from anyone at U.Mn. So, back when the original research (happened last year) the following clarification was offered by Qiushi Wu and Kangjie Lu which atleast paints their research in somewhat better light: https://www-users.cs.umn.edu/~kjlu/papers/clarifications-hc.... That said the current incident seems to have gone beyond the limits of that one and is a new incid…

From their explanation: (3). We send the incorrect minor patches to the Linux community through email to seek their feedback. (4). Once any maintainer of the community responds to the email, indicating “looks good”, we immediately point out the introduced bug and request them to not go ahead to apply the patch. At the same time, we point out the correct fixing of the bug and provide our proper patch. In all the three…

They apparently didn't consider this "human research"

As I understand it, any "experiment" involving other people that weren't explicitly informed of the experiment before hand needs to be a lot more carefully considered than what they did here.

Re: “They introduce kernel bugs on purpose”

#17

Post by andi999 »

kdbg wrote: post #2

I don't think there have been any recent comments from anyone at U.Mn. So, back when the original research (happened last year) the following clarification was offered by Qiushi Wu and Kangjie Lu which atleast paints their research in somewhat better light: https://www-users.cs.umn.edu/~kjlu/papers/clarifications-hc.... That said the current incident seems to have gone beyond the limits of that one and is a new incid…

Their first suggestion to the process is pure gold:"OSS projects would be suggested to update the code of conduct, something like “By submitting the patch, I agree to not intend to introduce bugs”"

Like somebody picking your locks, and suggesting, 'to stop this one approach would be to post a sign "do not pick"'

Re: “They introduce kernel bugs on purpose”

#18

Post by Ma8ee »

Macuyiko wrote: post #8
Metacelsus wrote: post #5

Yikes, and what are they hoping to accomplish with this "research"?

What any researcher needs to accomplish: more publications

That’s about as useful as to answer the question “what is this company doing?” with “trying to make money”.

Re: “They introduce kernel bugs on purpose”

#19

Post by ajb »

kstenerud wrote: post #3
kdbg wrote: post #2

I don't think there have been any recent comments from anyone at U.Mn. So, back when the original research (happened last year) the following clarification was offered by Qiushi Wu and Kangjie Lu which atleast paints their research in somewhat better light: https://www-users.cs.umn.edu/~kjlu/papers/clarifications-hc.... That said the current incident seems to have gone beyond the limits of that one and is a new incid…

From their explanation: (3). We send the incorrect minor patches to the Linux community through email to seek their feedback. (4). Once any maintainer of the community responds to the email, indicating “looks good”, we immediately point out the introduced bug and request them to not go ahead to apply the patch. At the same time, we point out the correct fixing of the bug and provide our proper patch. In all the three…

> You do not experiment on people without their consent.

Exactly this. Research involving human participants is supposed to have been approved by the University's Institutional Review Board; the kernel developers can complain to it: https://research.umn.edu/units/irb/about-us/contact-us

It would be interesting to see what these researches told the IRB they were doing (if they bothered).

Edited to add: From the link in GP: "The IRB of UMN reviewed the study and determined that this is not human research (a formal IRB exempt letter was obtained)"

Okay so this IRB needs to be educated about this. Probably someone in the kernel team should draft an open letter to them and get everyone to sign it (rather than everyone spamming the IRB contact form)

T

Post reply on HN