On Tue, 2025-01-14 at 14:58 +0100, Jan Kara wrote: > On Tue 14-01-25 10:07:03, Dmitry Vyukov wrote: > > I also don't fully understand the value of "we also reported X bugs > > to the upstream kernel" for research papers. There is little > > correlation with the quality/novelty of research. > > Since I was working in academia in the (distant) pass, let me share > my (slightly educated) guess: In the paper you're supposed to show > practical applicability and relevance of the improvement you propose. > It doesn't have to be really useful but it has to sound useful enough > to convince paper reviewer. I suppose in the fuzzer area this > "practical applicability" part boils down how many bugs were > reported... It's not just that, as a recent reviewer for several Academic Conferences, you always ask about the upstream status. Chances are if someone worked on open source but didn't send anything upstream that was because there wasn't enough value to send. However, when stuff does go to upstream lists, you can at least look at what upstream made of it as part of the review (the guilty confession would be this can be done quite easily and does break supposedly blind reviews, but it is very valuable). Conferences now have open source badges and artifacts to encourage this behaviour. I'm afraid this now means that if you're aiming at a Conference and you didn't send anything upstream you're quite likely to get a rejection on that fact alone. Regards, James
