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>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:   Fri, 23 Apr 2021 09:01:26 +0200
From:   Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>
To:     Doug Ledford <dledford@...hat.com>,
        Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Aditya Pakki <pakki001@....edu>, Kangjie Lu <kjlu@....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>,
        Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>,
        Jiri Kosina <jikos@...nel.org>, Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
        Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@...asonboard.com>,
        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

On 22/04/2021 20:53, Doug Ledford wrote:
> On Wed, 2021-04-21 at 15:01 -0300, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
>> On Wed, Apr 21, 2021 at 02:57:55PM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
>>> I have been meaning to do this for a while, but recent events have
>>> finally forced me to do so.
>>>
>>> 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).
>>
>> I noted in the paper it says:
>>
>>   A. Ethical Considerations
>>
>>   Ensuring the safety of the experiment. In the experiment, we aim to
>>   demonstrate the practicality of stealthily introducing
>> vulnerabilities
>>   through hypocrite commits. Our goal is not to introduce
>>   vulnerabilities to harm OSS. Therefore, we safely conduct the
>>   experiment to make sure that the introduced UAF bugs will not be
>>   merged into the actual Linux code
>>
>> So, this revert is based on not trusting the authors to carry out
>> their work in the manner they explained?
>>
>> From what I've reviewed, and general sentiment of other people's
>> reviews I've read, I am concerned this giant revert will degrade
>> kernel quality more than the experimenters did - especially if they
>> followed their stated methodology.
> 
> I have to agree with Jason.  This seems like trying to push a thumbtack
> into a bulletin board using a pyle driver.  Unless the researchers are
> lying (which I've not seen a clear indication of), the 190 patches you
> have selected here are nothing more than collateral damage while you are
> completely missing the supposed patch submission addresses from which
> the malicious patches were sent!
> 
> This all really sounds like a knee-jerk reaction to thier posting.  I
> have to say, I think it's the wrong reaction to have.

Nothing stops you from participating in the review of this
revert-series, if you think these are valuable commits. Patches getting
the review, won't be reverted (as I understood).


Best regards,
Krzysztof

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ