this post was submitted on 27 Sep 2023
8 points (75.0% liked)

Programming

17010 readers
442 users here now

Welcome to the main community in programming.dev! Feel free to post anything relating to programming here!

Cross posting is strongly encouraged in the instance. If you feel your post or another person's post makes sense in another community cross post into it.

Hope you enjoy the instance!

Rules

Rules

  • Follow the programming.dev instance rules
  • Keep content related to programming in some way
  • If you're posting long videos try to add in some form of tldr for those who don't want to watch videos

Wormhole

Follow the wormhole through a path of communities !webdev@programming.dev



founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] kairos@programming.dev 0 points 11 months ago (3 children)

Unfortunately I don't have my original patch, because I only sent that to the Linux security mailing list. I don't think it's a stupid thing to want to have code in the kernel, especially after spending all my time debugging this issue. The fix was trivial once I've pointed to the exact place where the buffer overflow happened and I should have received credit for all my effort.

[–] bloopernova@programming.dev 1 points 11 months ago

I think you'll be happier in the long run if you can forgive and move on.

[–] aard@kyu.de 0 points 11 months ago

You did receive credit. A good bug report allows reproducing and ideally fixing the issue - which can involve considerable effort. This is the difference between your report, and the one you linked from 6 years ago.

Like I said, I'd probably have added an additional thanks for that in my commit message - but I'm unfamiliar with the kind of reports this particular subsystem typically receives, so it is quite possible your report is just something average coming in there.

I personally prefer to include code suggesting a fix in my bug reports - but I usually don't expect it to be just merged as I'm not familiar with surrounding code. I also don't expect that to receive an additional mention - it's just part of the report, and is often cleaner in demonstrating the issue than a problem description.

[–] lysdexic@programming.dev -1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

I don’t think it’s a stupid thing to want to have code in the kernel, especially after spending all my time debugging this issue.

The way that you jumped straight onto broadcasting drama when your very first Linux kernel patch stumbled on the code review stage is a major red flag.

I would hate to work with you because I would feel that I would be risking being subjected to a very public character attack each time I had to review one of your patches.

[–] kairos@programming.dev -1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

The way that you jumped straight onto broadcasting drama

I'm not broadcasting drama, I'm sharing my side of the story on my personal blog and distribute it to other social media platforms.

your very first Linux kernel patch stumbled on the code review stage

The patch didn't stumble on the code review stage, the PowerPC maintainer didn't want to accept patches from me and implemented his own fix.

I would hate to work with you because I would feel that I would be risking being subjected to a very public character attack each time I had to review one of your patches.

Why would you hate people who would describe their interactions with you? The only reason I see is that you would hate how you've dealt with them.

[–] jet@hackertalks.com 7 points 11 months ago

I'm not broadcasting drama, I'm sharing my side of the story on my personal blog and distribute it to other social media platforms.

That's literally broadcasting drama.