Conversation

Bugdooring the Linux Kernel to get a paper into Oakland shows tremendously poor judgement. I mean, I can imagine situations in which trying to backdoor the Linux kernel could be worth it, but ... a paper? "I will demolish the Sphinx because someone promised a Snickers bar."

122

Replying to

What they did definitely unethical but they clearly didn't intend for the patches with mistakes to get accepted into the kernel. It's an unethical experiment because they're using human test subjects and had the potential to cause serious harm beyond just wasting their time too.

Replying to

and

So, definitely unethical, but it's being wrongly portrayed as malicious and a bunch of good faith patches aimed at fixing issues uncovered by static analysis are being misrepresented as being part of that. Many of those patches are shoddy work which isn't really surprising...

1:26 PM · Apr 22, 2021Twitter Web App

Replying to

and

That's kinda the whole thing. A "hypocrit commit" makes all their previous work suspect too. All their contributions to the kernel good faith or not are now suspect, and since this requires real human hours to fix, likely getting all their code yanked and redoing any real fixes

Replying to

and

Also if there are discrepancies between paper phrasing and what actually happened, the authors will be screwed, beyond whatever the whole IRB-UMN aftermath leads to.