I based my original reply in this thread, here someone claims that the patch set I linked above (from a uni email) is part of the paper : lore.kernel.org/linux-nfs/YH+z
You're right that they may be innocent patches, I've read a few threads about that since leaving my comment here...
Conversation
in this case the patch doesn't line up with the description at all. It's hard to believe it's a good faith patch.
1
They're students trying to silence errors from static analysis. It's a reach to claim that it's not in good faith because it's clearly wrong. They aren't experienced Linux kernel or probably even C developers. Many of the fixes they've submitted are still useful and correct.
2
Sure, you may well be correct here, however given the circumstances I think a certain level of cynicism is a good thing. You've jumped very quickly to fight this position which I never claimed to hold? My comment is based on 5 minutes of reading, nothing more.
1
It's naive to claim that all their patches are in good faith, e.g. this one, but then we get into arguing if it's justified to ban the university, and frankly I don't have a hat in that ring. I don't feel strongly either way.
1
So, maybe you shouldn't be making claims about whether someone was acting good faith based on 5 minutes of reading. Those are pretty serious accusations. The university acted unethically but so are certain kernel maintainers, and so are you right here.
2
You're accusing a student of maliciously submitting a patch without bothering to spend the time looking into the situation. See the problem?
What happens if someone malicious decides to start doing it instead of researchers with an unethical study not intended to cause harm?
1
I don't understand a number of your responses in this thread. It seems like you're taking statements as meaning much broader things than they do on a plain reading.
2
1
I'm responding to what people said. The intentionally bad patches were sent from Gmail addresses, so a lot of what people are saying doesn't really apply to what happened.
1
lore.kernel.org/linux-nfs/YH%2
"Yesterday, I took a look on 4
> > accepted patches from Aditya and 3 of them added various severity security
> > "holes"."
These are patches from the uni domain, to claim that these are innocent without any strong evidence would be very naive.
2
I see a kernel maintainer making unsubstantiated claims based on being upset about what happened earlier.
You say that these are patches from the university domain, but you aren't referring to any specific patches. I don't really see how non-existent evidence can be refuted.