neoflame

Your citations contradict your claim.

[2], p. 30: "Predation by nonnative and/or nuisance species. Predators, such as nonnative cats, dogs and foxes, as well as native crows and ravens, that are thriving in human-altered environments. The City policy of removing cats and foxes has been effective and beneficial for the burrowing owls."

[3]: "There are many factors that could explain the low numbers. The owls are ground-nesting, living in holes hollowed out by squirrels. That can leave them vulnerable to a long list of predators, including foxes, skunks and raccoons. Feral cats are considered the worst of the lot, preying on owls as well as the small birds and rodents that make up the owls' main food supply. In fact, a released cat last year ended up mauling one prolific male owl, Kleinhaus said."

[5] appears to concern burrowing owls in Black Hills National Forest, which is substantially different from Mountain View.

[9] does not call out cats specifically, but does recommend "[r]educing adult mortality rates by preventing the use of harmful rodenticides near occupied habitat and reducing the threat from non-native predators" on p. 22.

Citation 3 of the linked paper is https://twitter.com/who/status/1243972193169616898. I don't see how a tweet by the WHO beginning with "FACT: #COVID19 is NOT airborne" can be construed as anything but a denial that COVID-19 is airborne.

IANAL, but the claim that this research was exempt under 45 CFR 46.104(d)(2) seems suspect to me. (i) doesn't seem to apply because Linux kernel developers are required to go by their real names for licensing reasons (cf. the rules regarding Signed-off-by). (ii) seems dubious given that the authors themselves argue that they need reviewer consent to release information about the authors' malicious patches. Note in particular that both exemption categories are concerned with what information the researchers have ("information ... recorded" in (i), "any disclosure ... would not" in (ii)), not what they publish, so the idea that they need consent to publish this information seems to imply that they needed consent to collect it.

I don't think the attack described in the paper actually succeeded at all, and in fact the paper doesn't seem to claim that it did.

Specifically, I think the three malicious patches described in the paper are:

- UAF case 1, Fig. 11 => crypto: cavium/nitrox: add an error message to explain the failure of pci_request_mem_regions, https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20200821031209.21279-1-acostag.... The day after this patch was merged into a driver tree, the author suggested calling dev_err() before pci_disable_device(), which presumably was their attempt at maintainer notification; however, the code as merged doesn't actually appear to constitute a vulnerability because pci_disable_device() doesn't appear to free the struct pci_dev.

- UAF case 2, Fig. 9 => tty/vt: fix a memory leak in con_insert_unipair, https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20200809221453.10235-1-jameslou... This patch was not accepted.

- UAF case 3, Fig. 10 => rapidio: fix get device imbalance on error, https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20200821034458.22472-1-acostag.... Same author as case 1. This patch was not accepted.

This is not to say that open-source security is not a concern, but IMO the paper is deliberately misleading in an attempt to overstate its contributions.

edit: wording tweak for clarity

This is not true after Linux 3.16, commit 7fc34a62ca44 ("mm/msync.c: sync only the requested range in msync()").

Question for the Kinesis folks: does the height bother you at all? I've been considering buying a Kinesis Advantage, but in a comfortable seating position, with my forearms and thighs level with the ground, there's not much space between my arms and legs. I'm currently using a relatively short keyboard, on a keyboard tray, at work, and already find myself bumping the keyboard tray with my legs fairly frequently.

I graduated from UofT in 2011, and they still offered iron as an option.