Greg Kroah-Hartman (the Linux maintainer) I send a pull request Few days ago for Linux 5.13, with the aim of dealing with the "pain caused by the antics of some students at the University of Minnesota."
And is that Greg places particular emphasis on your submitted note for corrections from RC3 kernel version 5.13, where he mentions that little more than 80 developers had to work together.
In his note you can read the following:
Most here are the consequences of the new umn.edu review of all previous submissions. That resulted in a lot of rollbacks along with the "correct" changes made, so there is no regression of any of the possible corrections those individuals made. I'd like to thank the 80+ different developers who helped with the review and fixes for this mess.
More than 80 developers were needed to deal with the consequences of the work of University of Minnesota compsci students. The misjudged attempt to subvert the Linux kernel last month resulted in a total ban on contributions from anyone with a University of Minnesota email address and a massive rollback of confirmations.
And we must remember that all this chaos is due to the actions taken by a group of researchers from the University of Minnesota, since from the perspective of many, such actions in relation to the introduction of vulnerabilities in the Linux Kernel have no justification.
And even though a group University of Minnesot Researchersto publish an open letter of apology, whose acceptance of changes to the Linux kernel that was blocked by Greg Kroah-Hartman revealed details of patches submitted to kernel developers and correspondence with maintainers associated with these patches.
It is noteworthy that all problem patches were rejected At the initiative of the maintainers, none of the patches were approved. This fact makes it clear why Greg Kroah-Hartman acted so harshly, as it is unclear what the researchers would have done if the patches had been approved by maintainer.
In retrospect, argued that they intended to report the bug and they wouldn't allow patches to go to Git, but it's unclear what they would actually do or how far they could go.
About the case, Phoronix noted that of the approximately 150 patches sent by the umn.edu developers to the over the years, only 37 ended up being rolled back in this pull request. Most were unnecessary or » wrong «.
The request ends the review and cleanup of the umn.edu kernel patches, and we are confident that the time of those "more than 80 different developers" could have been better spent elsewhere.
And is that talking about Linux kernel version 5.13, too we can highlight that the fifth version candidate for this version has already been released few days ago and Linus Torvalds, has expressed only mild concern about progress.
With "Hmm", he opened the weekly post State of the Kernel by Torvalds
“Things haven't started to calm down much yet, but rc5 seems to be pretty average in size. I hope things start to shrink now.
Torvalds hasn't found anything that worries him so far in the 5.13 release cycle.
The first release candidate saw him comment that the community could expect "a fairly large merge window, but things seem to have gone smoothly." He added that the evaluation could represent "famous last words." For rc2, his position was that "things seem pretty normal" and, come rc3, he expressed a little surprise at the small size of the weekly release.
Torvalds wrote about release candidate four:
"It's not the biggest rc4 we've ever had, but it's certainly up there, credibly competing for the title." But he didn't worry because of the stability of rc2 and rc3.
The rc5 announcement expressed Torvalds hope that weekly releases will be reduced, indicating that he hopes to stick with his preferred routine of requiring no more than eight pitching candidates.