From: Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz>
To: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Kangjie Lu <kjlu@umn.edu>,
tech-board@lists.linux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: Report on University of Minnesota Breach-of-Trust Incident
Date: Thu, 6 May 2021 23:40:09 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20210506214009.GA6494@amd> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <202105061042.E99B414F0A@keescook>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2062 bytes --]
Hi!
> > # 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. ...
Thank you.
> > 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.
Well, in https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/YIV+pLR0nt94q0xQ@kroah.com/#t
Greg says:
"Until those actions are taken, we do not have anything further to
discuss about this issue."
I'm not sure on behalf of whom he is speaking in the email (and I
believe he is unneccessarily harsh with them).
I could reply to that saying "hey, Greg is probably speaking only for
himself there, he certainly can't speak for whole linux community",
but I believe it would be better if TAB did that.
Best regards,
Pavel
--
http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 181 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-05-06 21:40 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-05-05 17:07 Report on University of Minnesota Breach-of-Trust Incident Kees Cook
2021-05-06 8:26 ` Pavel Machek
2021-05-06 18:40 ` Kees Cook
2021-05-06 21:02 ` Metztli Information Technology
2021-05-11 15:39 ` Richard Guy Briggs
2021-05-06 21:40 ` Pavel Machek [this message]
2021-05-08 1:30 ` Kangjie Lu
2021-05-09 17:56 ` Kees Cook
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20210506214009.GA6494@amd \
--to=pavel@ucw.cz \
--cc=keescook@chromium.org \
--cc=kjlu@umn.edu \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=tech-board@lists.linux-foundation.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox