For research groups, the faculty advisor is the responsible party; once that party has been shown to act maliciously, extra scrutiny is warranted, unless there is some evidence that durable reform has occurred. (The same might be said less strongly of the institutional source, as well.)

> I'm sure many advisors have tons of students contributing to the Kernel or other projects, every single year.

And virtually all of them have not been—either advisor or institution—responsible for malicious kernel patches.

Actions have consequences.

It's nonsense that they acted maliciously. The original research was handled terribly, but it was not malicious. They intended to help, not hurt, even if they did so very poorly.

Further, that is one advisor, whose name is not being dragged. Aditya's name, however, is, thanks to Greg's slanderous comments.

https://twitter.com/trishalynn/status/1385410960278491137 "I am disgusted by the actions of Aditya Pakki"

https://twitter.com/hedleyroos/status/1386290204298735617 "Aditya Pakki is going to have a hard time finding employment." (this one directly retweeted Greg's post)

https://twitter.com/_mackal/status/1384910754151866370 "The simple fact that Aditya Pakki is so butt hurt proves this wasn't in good faith and their only reason for doing it is to shit out another hit piece. That email you quoted is fucking insane."

https://twitter.com/BeardyNotes/status/1384900450059788288 "Sleazeballs like Aditya Pakki should be fired and disbarred from doing any "research" anywhere in the world!"

https://twitter.com/seakoz/status/1384895697414148096 "Aditya Pakki will forever be googleable as the guy who deliberately tried to make Linux insecure."

Does that seem right to you? Are these the "consequences" you think are justified, because Aditya was trying to add legitimate patches for a tool he was working on to contribute to the kernel?

Greg should publicly apologize to Aditya.