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:   Mon, 26 Apr 2021 19:02:42 +0200
From:   Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
To:     Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@huawei.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Kangjie Lu <kjlu@umn.edu>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 093/190] Revert "iio: hmc5843: fix potential NULL pointer
 dereferences"
Message-ID: <YIbyMgf7itu+POVL@kroah.com>
References: <20210421130105.1226686-1-gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
 <20210421130105.1226686-94-gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
 <20210422092625.00005af6@Huawei.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20210422092625.00005af6@Huawei.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Apr 22, 2021 at 09:26:25AM +0100, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Apr 2021 14:59:28 +0200
> Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> 
> > This reverts commit 536cc27deade8f1ec3c1beefa60d5fbe0f6fcb28.
> > 
> > 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.
> > 
> > Cc: Kangjie Lu <kjlu@umn.edu>
> > Cc: Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@huawei.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
> Hi Greg,
> 
> Checked this one.  As far as I can tell it was a valid cleanup of
> error handling. Far from critical though and unlikely to be seen in practice.
> 
> So either leave it in place, or we can bring it back later. I don't mind
> which.

Now dropped, thanks.

greg k-h