From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
To: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>, Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>
Cc: Roland Dreier <roland@kernel.org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@hansenpartnership.com>,
ksummit@lists.linux.dev
Subject: Re: [MAINTAINER SUMMIT] Rethinking the acceptance policy for "trivial" patches
Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2021 00:35:02 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <87wnsuvtgp.ffs@nanos.tec.linutronix.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <YIG6XaUrdt6jUezJ@zeniv-ca.linux.org.uk>
Al,
On Thu, Apr 22 2021 at 18:03, Al Viro wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 22, 2021 at 06:59:48AM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
>> On Wed, Apr 21, 2021 at 12:32:33PM -0700, Roland Dreier wrote:
>> > I also think there does need to be a strong sanction against this UMN
>> > research group, since we need to make sure there are strong incentives
>> > against wasting everyone's time with stunts like this. Hopefully on
>> > the academic side it can be made clear that this is not ethical
>> > research - for example, why did IEEE think this was an acceptable
>> > paper?
>>
>> I wholeheartedly disagree. Demonstrating this kind of "attack" has
>> been long overdue, and kicked off a very important discussion. Even
>> more so as in this area malice is almost indistinguishable from normal
>> incompetence. I think they deserve a medel of honor.
>
> Demonstrating this kind of attack would be very useful, if they bothered to
> provide the raw data and their protocol.
>
> They'd done neither, AFAICS. There's no way to actually look at how the
> submissions went, timings, etc. We are offered what could (very generously)
> be called aggregate stats illustrating the problems, along with bloody
> worthless suggestions of improvements. Use of the technics in question
> is not limited to introducing UAF bugs; it's certainly possible to use
> a (real or not) UAF bug as an excuse to get in something designed _not_
> to be caught by any of their suggested scler^Whardening patches, etc.
>
> There certainly are very real problems with review process, and examining
> their data might provide useful insights - had any of that data been
> given.
I agree.
Though the most important takeaway for me is that this demonstrated the
problems which the kernel development has - once more.
What's worse is that it's known for quite some time that the kernel
development is understaffed and cannot keep up with the influx of
patches. Of course this has been willfully ignored - similar to other
completely avoidable horrors like the ssl disaster.
There is a long list of issues which lead to that situation, but let me
pick a few really important ones:
- The 'features and performance first, correctness maybe' mentality in
this industry.
- The ignorance which takes the availability and sustainability of
FOSS components especially "low-level plumbing" ones for granted,
even if their business is built on and depends on these.
- The unwillingness to put money on basic "low-level" technology just
because it does not come with the 'hype-of-the-day' tag and is
therefore useless for marketing and headlines.
None of these things can be solved at the technical level. There is no
technical solution which solves problems at the human stupidity and
even less so at the greed level.
While in theory the approach of sharing the workload for base technology
is obviously the right thing to do, the reality tells that sharing is
interpreted as make sure that someone else pays for it and I can push my
feature agenda.
As long as that does not change, nothing will change.
We can put technical countermeasures (as discussed elsewhere in this
thread) in place as much as we want, they are just futile attempts which
try to cure the symptoms.
As technical people we all know how useful the approach of curing the
symptoms instead of the root cause is. But still we try to do that
because we think it's our only option.
It's about time to rethink that approach.
Thanks,
Thomas
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-04-22 22:35 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 156+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-04-21 18:35 [MAINTAINER SUMMIT] Rethinking the acceptance policy for "trivial" patches James Bottomley
2021-04-21 18:46 ` Christian Borntraeger
2021-04-21 18:51 ` Alexey Dobriyan
2021-04-21 18:53 ` Christian Borntraeger
2021-04-21 19:06 ` Al Viro
2021-04-21 19:14 ` James Bottomley
2021-04-21 19:22 ` Steven Rostedt
2021-04-21 19:26 ` Kees Cook
2021-04-21 19:32 ` Roland Dreier
2021-04-21 19:55 ` Julia Lawall
2021-04-21 20:28 ` Stephen Hemminger
2021-04-21 20:37 ` Julia Lawall
2021-04-21 20:45 ` Steven Rostedt
2021-04-21 20:50 ` Julia Lawall
2021-04-21 21:03 ` Jiri Kosina
2021-04-21 21:37 ` James Morris
2021-04-22 7:34 ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2021-04-22 7:51 ` Mike Rapoport
2021-04-22 8:45 ` Christian Brauner
2021-04-22 15:27 ` Steven Rostedt
2021-04-22 9:39 ` Mauro Carvalho Chehab
2021-04-22 9:55 ` Mauro Carvalho Chehab
2021-04-22 12:01 ` Leon Romanovsky
2021-04-22 12:26 ` Mark Brown
2021-04-22 12:35 ` Leon Romanovsky
2021-04-22 12:52 ` Hans Verkuil
2021-04-22 13:33 ` Mauro Carvalho Chehab
2021-04-22 13:42 ` Leon Romanovsky
2021-04-22 12:18 ` Leon Romanovsky
2021-04-22 15:38 ` Shuah Khan
2021-04-23 9:06 ` Mauro Carvalho Chehab
2021-04-23 17:17 ` Leon Romanovsky
2021-04-23 22:41 ` Shuah Khan
2021-04-22 5:59 ` Christoph Hellwig
2021-04-22 6:28 ` Tomasz Figa
2021-04-22 7:05 ` Al Viro
2021-04-22 7:46 ` Al Viro
2021-04-22 7:06 ` H. Peter Anvin
2021-04-22 7:05 ` Jiri Kosina
2021-04-22 16:05 ` Roland Dreier
2021-04-22 16:24 ` Krzysztof Kozlowski
2021-04-22 18:03 ` Al Viro
2021-04-22 22:35 ` Thomas Gleixner [this message]
2021-04-22 22:53 ` Laurent Pinchart
2021-07-20 16:26 ` Kernel sustainability (was Re: [MAINTAINER SUMMIT] Rethinking the acceptance policy for "trivial" patches) Daniel Vetter
2021-04-21 19:30 ` [MAINTAINER SUMMIT] Rethinking the acceptance policy for "trivial" patches Jiri Kosina
2021-04-21 20:28 ` Jiri Kosina
2021-04-21 22:18 ` Shuah Khan
2021-04-21 23:17 ` Guenter Roeck
2021-04-21 23:21 ` Shuah Khan
2021-04-21 19:47 ` Dan Carpenter
2021-04-22 9:34 ` Mauro Carvalho Chehab
2021-04-22 9:59 ` Johannes Berg
2021-04-22 10:52 ` Mauro Carvalho Chehab
2021-04-22 12:16 ` Mike Rapoport
2021-04-22 13:41 ` Mauro Carvalho Chehab
2021-04-22 20:15 ` Alexandre Belloni
2021-04-23 0:09 ` Randy Dunlap
2021-04-21 19:49 ` Alexandre Belloni
2021-04-22 2:05 ` Martin K. Petersen
2021-04-22 3:04 ` Joe Perches
2021-04-22 10:13 ` Mauro Carvalho Chehab
2021-04-22 12:07 ` Mark Brown
2021-04-22 16:42 ` Bart Van Assche
2021-04-22 17:58 ` Jiri Kosina
2021-04-22 4:21 ` Leon Romanovsky
2021-04-22 4:56 ` Al Viro
2021-04-22 5:52 ` Leon Romanovsky
2021-04-22 6:05 ` Christoph Hellwig
2021-04-22 6:03 ` Christoph Hellwig
2021-04-22 6:18 ` Leon Romanovsky
2021-04-22 9:20 ` Mauro Carvalho Chehab
2021-04-22 11:34 ` Leon Romanovsky
2021-04-22 13:22 ` Mark Brown
2021-04-22 13:47 ` Leon Romanovsky
2021-04-22 13:51 ` Mark Brown
2021-04-22 14:12 ` Mauro Carvalho Chehab
2021-04-22 14:51 ` Leon Romanovsky
2021-04-22 13:29 ` Steven Rostedt
2021-04-22 13:58 ` Leon Romanovsky
2021-04-22 14:20 ` Rob Herring
2021-04-23 6:04 ` Mauro Carvalho Chehab
2021-04-23 6:46 ` Joe Perches
2021-04-23 7:13 ` Mauro Carvalho Chehab
2021-04-23 7:20 ` [PATCH RFC] scripts: add a script for sending patches Mauro Carvalho Chehab
2021-04-23 7:20 ` Mauro Carvalho Chehab
2021-04-23 14:52 ` Better tools for sending patches (was: Re: [MAINTAINER SUMMIT] Rethinking the acceptance policy for "trivial" patches) Doug Anderson
2021-04-23 16:03 ` Mark Brown
2021-04-23 17:12 ` Leon Romanovsky
2021-04-26 23:50 ` Simon Glass
2021-04-22 12:53 ` [MAINTAINER SUMMIT] Rethinking the acceptance policy for "trivial" patches Konstantin Ryabitsev
2021-04-22 13:08 ` Leon Romanovsky
2021-04-22 13:27 ` Konstantin Ryabitsev
2021-04-22 13:41 ` Leon Romanovsky
2021-04-22 16:28 ` Serge E. Hallyn
2021-04-22 17:56 ` Leon Romanovsky
2021-04-22 18:05 ` backfilling threads with b4 (was: Re: [MAINTAINER SUMMIT] Rethinking the acceptance policy for "trivial" patches) Konstantin Ryabitsev
2021-04-22 18:51 ` Leon Romanovsky
2021-04-25 10:58 ` Leon Romanovsky
2021-04-23 7:19 ` [MAINTAINER SUMMIT] Rethinking the acceptance policy for "trivial" patches Greg KH
2021-04-23 7:31 ` Christian Brauner
2021-04-23 18:50 ` Konstantin Ryabitsev
2021-04-22 12:40 ` Mark Brown
2021-04-22 12:54 ` Mike Rapoport
2021-04-22 13:23 ` Mark Brown
2021-04-22 15:19 ` Steven Rostedt
2021-04-22 21:19 ` Thomas Gleixner
2021-04-22 21:36 ` Steven Rostedt
2021-04-22 22:39 ` Thomas Gleixner
2021-04-23 0:26 ` Joe Perches
2021-04-23 6:15 ` Greg KH
2021-04-23 6:50 ` Dan Williams
2021-04-23 7:13 ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2021-04-23 14:41 ` Shuah Khan
2021-04-23 9:12 ` Michal Hocko
2021-04-22 14:51 ` Laurent Pinchart
2021-04-22 15:14 ` Mike Rapoport
2021-04-22 15:17 ` Laurent Pinchart
2021-04-22 15:35 ` Al Viro
2021-04-22 15:32 ` Shuah Khan
2021-04-22 10:35 ` Mauro Carvalho Chehab
2021-04-22 11:03 ` Sudip Mukherjee
2021-04-22 14:00 ` Steven Rostedt
2021-04-22 14:07 ` Jiri Kosina
2021-04-22 15:31 ` Sudip Mukherjee
2021-04-22 21:33 ` Thomas Gleixner
2021-04-22 20:28 ` Andrew Morton
2021-04-22 20:46 ` Steven Rostedt
2021-04-22 12:32 ` Martin K. Petersen
2021-04-22 15:11 ` Laurent Pinchart
2021-04-22 15:28 ` James Bottomley
2021-04-22 15:35 ` Johannes Berg
2021-04-22 15:36 ` Mark Brown
2021-04-22 15:40 ` James Bottomley
2021-04-23 9:27 ` Dan Carpenter
2021-04-22 13:24 ` Konstantin Ryabitsev
2021-04-22 14:31 ` Mauro Carvalho Chehab
2021-04-22 15:34 ` Shuah Khan
2021-04-22 15:42 ` James Bottomley
2021-04-22 15:48 ` James Bottomley
2021-04-22 15:52 ` Steven Rostedt
2021-04-22 16:08 ` Shuah Khan
2021-04-22 16:13 ` Jan Kara
2021-04-22 17:04 ` Steven Rostedt
2021-04-22 17:08 ` Martin K. Petersen
2021-04-23 11:16 ` Jan Kara
2021-04-23 12:57 ` Mauro Carvalho Chehab
2021-04-23 7:58 ` Mauro Carvalho Chehab
2021-04-23 10:54 ` Greg KH
2021-04-23 17:09 ` Leon Romanovsky
2021-04-22 16:23 ` Konstantin Ryabitsev
2021-04-22 16:38 ` Bart Van Assche
2021-04-22 16:57 ` Leon Romanovsky
2021-04-22 18:03 ` Jiri Kosina
2021-04-22 21:26 ` Thomas Gleixner
2021-04-22 21:36 ` Jiri Kosina
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=87wnsuvtgp.ffs@nanos.tec.linutronix.de \
--to=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=James.Bottomley@hansenpartnership.com \
--cc=hch@infradead.org \
--cc=ksummit@lists.linux.dev \
--cc=roland@kernel.org \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk \
/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 an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.