Message-ID: <4eb59c7815d86d85e42b50c45f10e47273c5e0e0.camel@metztli.com>
Date:   Thu, 06 May 2021 14:02:47 -0700
From:   Metztli Information Technology <jose.r.r@...ztli.com>
To:     Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>, Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Kangjie Lu <kjlu@....edu>,
        tech-board@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
        Edward Shishkin <edward.shishkin@...il.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
Subject: Re: Report on University of Minnesota Breach-of-Trust Incident

On Thu, 2021-05-06 at 11:40 -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
> On Thu, May 06, 2021 at 10:26:16AM +0200, Pavel Machek wrote:
> > Hi!
> > 
> > > Report on University of Minnesota Breach-of-Trust Incident
> > > 
> > >         or
> > > 
> > > "An emergency re-review of kernel commits authored by members of
> > > the
> > >  University of Minnesota, due to the Hypocrite Commits research
> > > paper."
> > > 
> > > May 5, 2021
> > 
> > Thanks for doing this. I believe short summary is that there was
> > some
> > deception from UMN researches in 2020:
> > 
> > > 2020 August:
> > >   - "Hypocrite Commits" patches from UMN researchers sent to
> > > kernel developers
> > >     under false identities:
> > >     - Aug 4 13:36-0500
> > >         https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20200804183650.4024-1-jameslouisebond@gmail.com
> > >     - Aug 9 17:14-0500
> > >         https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20200809221453.10235-1-jameslouisebond@gmail.com
> > >     - Aug 20 22:12-0500
> > >         https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20200821031209.21279-1-acostag.ubuntu@gmail.com
> > >     - Aug 20 22:44-0500
> > >         https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20200821034458.22472-1-acostag.ubuntu@gmail.com
> > >     - Aug 21 02:05-0500
> > >         https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20200821070537.30317-1-jameslouisebond@gmail.com
> > 
> > But there was no deception from UMN in 2021. Yet, we were
> > spreading... let's say inaccurate information as late as this:
> > 
> > > 2021 April 29:
> > >   - Greg posts an update on the re-review along with some more
> > > reverts.
> > >         https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20210429130811.3353369-1-gregkh@linuxfoundation.org
> > 
> > # 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.
> 
> I would agree that the phrasing here is sub-optimal in that it could
> more clearly separate a few related things (e.g. "malicious change"
> vs
> "valid fix"). If I were writing this, I would have said something
> along
> the lines of:
> 
>   Commits from UMN authors have been found to be submitted with
> intentional
>   flaws to try to test the kernel community's ability to review
> "known
>   malicious" changes. ...
>   During review of all submissions, some patches were found to be
>   unintentionally flawed. ...
>   Out of an abundance of caution all submissions from this group must
> be
>   reverted from the tree and will need to be re-review again. ...
> 
> I would also note that in that thread Greg reviewed all the mentioned
> patches, clearing all but two of them (which were duplicates to
> earlier
> review).
> 
> > UMN apologized. Our reaction to their apology was:
> > 
> > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/YIV+pLR0nt94q0xQ@kroah.com/#t
> > 
> > Do we owe them apology, too?
> 
> I will defer to Greg on what he thinks his duties are there, but in
> trying to figure out who "we" is, I'll just point out that I
> attempted
> to clarify the incorrect assumptions about the intent of historical
> UMN
> patches, and spoke for the entire TAB (Greg included) here:
> https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/202104221451.292A6ED4@keescook/
> The report repeated this in several places, and we explained our need
> for due diligence.
> 
> -Kees
> 

This has aged well:

"Linux has a problem, which is that with success it is attracting
people with more skill than what it started with, and it is not doing a
very good job of handling that. In fact, it downright stinks at it,
behaving in the worst way it could choose for handling that. [Linux]
have lost quite a number of FS developers who just don't want to deal
with people who know less than they do but are obnoxious and
disrespectful to submissions because they enjoy powertripping...
*[Linux] should develop a culture in which acceptance is more based on
whose code measurably performs well [,i.e, meritocracy, rather] than on
who is friends with whom.*~

< https://lkml.org/lkml/2006/7/21/109 >

Yet when self-believing 'badass' Linux developers engage in what is
essentially masturbation by 'fixing' obsolete security issues[1]
< https://lkml.org/lkml/2020/8/17/174 >
rather than reviewing how 'friend' contributors' patches fit within the
overall kernel development structure, it is to be expected to end up
with a *sabotaged* kernel.

[1] https://www.theregister.com/2020/10/25/linux_5_10_rc1/


Best Professional Regards.

-- 
-- 
Jose R R
http://metztli.it
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------
Download Metztli Reiser4: Debian Buster w/ Linux 5.10.26 AMD64
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------
feats ZSTD compression https://sf.net/projects/metztli-reiser4/
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------
or SFRN 5.1.3, Metztli Reiser5 https://sf.net/projects/debian-reiser4/
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------
Official current Reiser4 resources: https://reiser4.wiki.kernel.org/

Powered by blists - more mailing lists