Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Wed, 21 Apr 2021 17:59:00 +0200
From:   David Sterba <dsterba@suse.cz>
To:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
Cc:     linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Kangjie Lu <kjlu@umn.edu>,
        David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 106/190] Revert "tty: ipwireless: fix missing checks for
 ioremap"
Message-ID: <20210421155900.GB7604@twin.jikos.cz>
Reply-To: dsterba@suse.cz
Mail-Followup-To: dsterba@suse.cz,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Kangjie Lu <kjlu@umn.edu>,
        David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
References: <20210421130105.1226686-1-gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
 <20210421130105.1226686-107-gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20210421130105.1226686-107-gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23.1-rc1 (2014-03-12)
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Apr 21, 2021 at 02:59:41PM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> This reverts commit 1bbb1c318cd8a3a39e8c3e2e83d5e90542d6c3e3.
> 
> 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.  The result of these submissions can be found in a
> paper published at the 42nd IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy
> entitled, "Open Source Insecurity: Stealthily Introducing
> Vulnerabilities via Hypocrite Commits" written by Qiushi Wu (University
> of Minnesota) and Kangjie Lu (University of Minnesota).
> 
> Because of this, all submissions from this group must be reverted from
> the kernel tree and will need to be re-reviewed again to determine if
> they actually are a valid fix.  Until that work is complete, remove this
> change to ensure that no problems are being introduced into the
> codebase.

I've reviewed the patch at the time and now again with fresh eyes, but
it's IMO a valid fix that would have to be done the same way after
revert.