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;
Subject: Re: [PATCH 106/190] Revert "tty: ipwireless: fix missing checks for
 ioremap"
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>
 <20210421155900.GB7604@twin.jikos.cz>
From:   Jiri Slaby <jirislaby@kernel.org>
Message-ID: <dd0698e1-9b31-53fc-4dd1-da474cd483bd@kernel.org>
Date:   Thu, 22 Apr 2021 06:57:19 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/78.9.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20210421155900.GB7604@twin.jikos.cz>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-2; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On 21. 04. 21, 17:59, David Sterba wrote:
> 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.

ACK -- the same opinion here.

-- 
js
suse labs