Lvl 0

0 / 0
(Lvl 4)
X 1
Did the UMN researchers lie when they claimed their hypocrite patches were accepted by the kernel maintainers?

I know a lot of conversation happened around the hypocrite patches sent by the UMN to the kernel and that the situation is finally calming down now that more facts came out, but there is one point that seems not to have been addressed correctly:

The claims that the hypocrite patches got accepted by the maintainers. The paper actually claims as such:

Section VI.

The experiment is to demonstrate the practicality of hypocrite commits.
Once a maintainer confirmed our patches, e.g. an email reply indicating "looks good"...
In all three cases, maintainers explicitly acknowledged and confirmed to not move forward with the incorrect patches.

Section X.

Furthermore, we provided a proof-of-concept to safely demonstrate the practicality of hypocrite commits...

But now, the researchers have finally been forced to show their actual data and point to the actual patches they sent. They seem to paint a completely different picture:

First one was refused by two maintainers, including gkh.

Second was nacked too.

Third was similarly replied it was useless.

So what actually happened there? Unless there were off the record exchanges overriding those refusals (which is extremely doubtful), it seems the patches were all caught and refused by the kernel maintainers, which would suggest that the researchers were at least misleading, at worst lying in their original paper.

While the argument can be made that the researchers should not face consequences, since they were acting in good faith during their experiment by making sure not to actually introduce bugs in the kernel and since the experiment technically does not classify as human experiment, lying would on the other hand be an extremely serious offense in academia.

   25 exp X 1
Post a reply.

Here's what Greg KH had to say in the exchange here\

> > They introduce kernel bugs on purpose. Yesterday, I took a look on 4 > > accepted patches from Aditya and 3 of them added various severity security > > "holes".

> > All contributions by this group of people need to be reverted, if they > have not been done so already, as what they are doing is intentional > malicious behavior and is not acceptable and totally unethical. I'll > look at it after lunch unless someone else wants to do it...

>A lot of these have already reached the stable trees. I can send you revert patches for stable by the end of today (if your scripts have not already done it).

Now he's clearly referring to the prior contribution, but the person he's talking with is concerned with them being malicious as well.

You draw your own conclusions...

Post Views: 15
Comments: 1

Upvotes: 2
Downvotes: -1

Decay Rate: 1
Current Score: 1
Top Score: 27
Top Post Tips
Top Comment Tips