linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 000/190] Revertion of all of the umn.edu commits

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:   Wed, 21 Apr 2021 18:16:07 +0300
From:   Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@...asonboard.com>
To:     Kangjie Lu <kjlu@....edu>
Cc:     Jiri Kosina <jikos@...nel.org>, Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Aditya Pakki <pakki001@....edu>, Qiushi Wu <wu000273@....edu>,
        x86@...nel.org, Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, David Airlie <airlied@...ux.ie>,
        Michael Turquette <mturquette@...libre.com>,
        Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@...aro.org>,
        Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
        Bartosz Golaszewski <bgolaszewski@...libre.com>,
        Daniel Vetter <daniel@...ll.ch>,
        Jean Delvare <jdelvare@...e.com>,
        Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Johan Hovold <johan@...nel.org>,
        Jiri Slaby <jirislaby@...nel.org>,
        Pablo Neira Ayuso <pablo@...filter.org>,
        Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>,
        Takashi Iwai <tiwai@...e.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 000/190] Revertion of all of the umn.edu commits

Hi Kangjie,

On Wed, Apr 21, 2021 at 09:44:52AM -0500, Kangjie Lu wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 21, 2021 at 9:32 AM Jiri Kosina wrote:
> > On Wed, 21 Apr 2021, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> > > > Commits from @umn.edu addresses have been found to be submitted in
> > > > "bad faith" to try to test the kernel community's ability to review
> > > > "known malicious" changes.  The result of these submissions can be
> > > > found in a paper published at the 42nd IEEE Symposium on Security and
> > > > Privacy entitled, "Open Source Insecurity: Stealthily Introducing
> > > > Vulnerabilities via Hypocrite Commits" written by Qiushi Wu
> > > > (University of Minnesota) and Kangjie Lu (University of Minnesota).
> > >
> > > Sigh. As if this wouldn't be a problem everywhere.
> >
> > Right.
> >
> > > > Because of this, all submissions from this group must be reverted from
> > > > the kernel tree and will need to be re-reviewed again to determine if
> > > > they actually are a valid fix.  Until that work is complete, remove this
> > > > change to ensure that no problems are being introduced into the
> > > > codebase.
> > > >
> > > > This patchset has the "easy" reverts, there are 68 remaining ones that
> > > > need to be manually reviewed.  Some of them are not able to be reverted
> > > > as they already have been reverted, or fixed up with follow-on patches
> > > > as they were determined to be invalid.  Proof that these submissions
> > > > were almost universally wrong.
> > > >
> > > > I will be working with some other kernel developers to determine if any
> > > > of these reverts were actually valid changes, were actually valid, and
> > > > if so, will resubmit them properly later.  For now, it's better to be
> > > > safe.
> > > >
> > > > 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?)
> > > >
> > > > thanks,
> > > >
> > > > greg k-h
> > > >
> > > [ ... ]
> > > >   Revert "hwmon: (lm80) fix a missing check of bus read in lm80 probe"
> > >
> > > I see
> > >
> > > 9aa3aa15f4c2 hwmon: (lm80) fix a missing check of bus read in lm80 probe
> > > c9c63915519b hwmon: (lm80) fix a missing check of the status of SMBus read
> > >
> > > The latter indeed introduced a problem which was later fixed with
> >
> > Therefore I'd like to ask Kangjie Lu (who is CCed here) to consider
> > revising his statement in the attempted public clarification:
> >
> >         "The experiment did not introduce any bug or bug-introducing commit into
> >          OSS."
> >
> > at [1] as it's clearly not true. Missing mutex unlock clearky is a bug
> > introduced by this experiment.
> 
> Hi everyone,
> 
> I am so sorry for the concerns. I fully understand why the community is
> angry. Please allow me to have a very quick response, as Jiri requested. We
> will provide a detailed explanation later.
> 
> These are two different projects. The one published at IEEE S&P 2021 has
> completely finished in November 2020. My student Aditya is working on a new
> project that is to find bugs introduced by bad patches. Please do not link
> these two projects together.  I am sorry that his new patches are not
> correct either. He did not intentionally make the mistake.

Do you have a list of all known bad commits ? Not that we shouldn't
revert the other ones as well, but having a list of bad ones would be
useful when reviewing commits individually to see which ones may
actually be correct.

> > [1] https://www-users.cs.umn.edu/~kjlu/

-- 
Regards,

Laurent Pinchart