[devmor]

That's what it seemed like to me as well. Based on their research paper, they did not mention the individuals they interacted with at all.

They also lied in the paper about their methodology - claiming that once their code was accepted, they told the maintainers it should not be included. In reality, several of their bad commits made it into the stable branch.

[bogwog]

I don’t think that’s what’s happening here. The research paper you’re talking about was already published, and supposedly only consisted of 3 patches, not the 200 or so being reverted here.

So it’s possible that this situation has nothing to do with that research, and is just another unethical thing that coincidentally comes from the same university. Or it really is a new study by the same people.

Either way, I think we should get the facts straight before the wrong people are attacked.

[rocqua]

> In reality, several of their bad commits made it into the stable branch.

Is it known whether these commits were indeed bad? It is certainly worth removing them just in case, but is there any confirmation?

[Koliakis]

https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/78ac6ee8-8e7c-bd4c-a3a7-5a90c7c...

[nightpool]

This is a completely separate incident, a year apart from the paper under discussion.

[Koliakis]

Then just go through the linked mailing list in the OP. It's in the quoted parts. Honestly, the people around here.

[devmor]

I don't think we know if they contain bugs, but from what I gathered reading the mailing list, we do know that they added nothing of value.