From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4749B2F81 for ; Wed, 21 Apr 2021 20:45:22 +0000 (UTC) Received: from gandalf.local.home (cpe-66-24-58-225.stny.res.rr.com [66.24.58.225]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 35DE261426; Wed, 21 Apr 2021 20:45:21 +0000 (UTC) Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2021 16:45:19 -0400 From: Steven Rostedt To: Julia Lawall Cc: Stephen Hemminger , Roland Dreier , James Bottomley , ksummit@lists.linux.dev Subject: Re: [MAINTAINER SUMMIT] Rethinking the acceptance policy for "trivial" patches Message-ID: <20210421164519.4aa271b9@gandalf.local.home> In-Reply-To: References: <20210421152209.68075314@gandalf.local.home> <20210421132824.13a70f6c@hermes.local> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.17.8 (GTK+ 2.24.33; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) X-Mailing-List: ksummit@lists.linux.dev List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Wed, 21 Apr 2021 22:37:55 +0200 (CEST) Julia Lawall wrote: > The apology states that they didn't detect any vulnerabilities. They > found three non exploitable bugs and submitted incorrect patches for them. > When the patches received some positive feedback, they explained that the > patches were incorrect and provided a proper fix. > > So they damaged trust, but not actually the Linux kernel... That's what they stated, but did any patch that they knew was incorrect actually make it into the kernel? If so, then it's on them. -- Steve