No bugs were introduced and they didn't intend to introduce any bugs. infact, they have resolved over 1000+ bugs in the linux kernel.
>> https://www-users.cs.umn.edu/~kjlu/papers/clarifications-hc....
"We did not introduce or intend to introduce any bug or vulnerability in the Linux kernel. All the
bug-introducing patches stayed only in the email exchanges, without being adopted or merged into any
Linux branch, which was explicitly confirmed by maintainers. Therefore, the bug-introducing patches in
the email did not even become a Git commit in any Linux branch. None of the Linux users would be
affected. The following shows the specific procedure of the experiment"
so instead of fixing the issue they found of being able to introduce backdoors in to their code, they are going to rollback thousand + of other bug fixes.
That's more of a story than what the researchers have done...
What would you do, if you had a group of patch authors who you didn't trust the contributions of anymore, other than setting aside the time for someone trusted to audit all 390 commits they've had since 2014?
I don't think it's necessarily a bruised ego here - I think what upset him is that the paper was published a few months ago and yet, based on this patch, the author seems to still be attempting to submit deeply flawed patches to LKML, and complaining when people don't trust them to be innocent mistakes for some reason.
>> https://www-users.cs.umn.edu/~kjlu/papers/clarifications-hc.... "We did not introduce or intend to introduce any bug or vulnerability in the Linux kernel. All the bug-introducing patches stayed only in the email exchanges, without being adopted or merged into any Linux branch, which was explicitly confirmed by maintainers. Therefore, the bug-introducing patches in the email did not even become a Git commit in any Linux branch. None of the Linux users would be affected. The following shows the specific procedure of the experiment"