There's certainly a sociology aspect to the whole thing, but the hypothetical second paper is just as much social-exploit-vector vulnerability research as the first one. The only change being the state of the actor involved.

The existing paper researched the feasibility of unknown actors to introduce vulnerable code. The hypothetical second paper has the same basis, but is from the vantage point of a known bad actor.

Reading through the mailing list (as best I can), the maintainer's response to the latest buggy patches seemed pretty civil[1] in general, and even more so considering the prior behavior. And the submitter's response to that (quoted here[2]) went to the extreme end of defensiveness. Instead of addressing or acknowledging anything in the maintainer's message, the submitter:

- Rejected the concerns of the maintainer as "wild accusations bordering on slander"

- Stating their naivety of the kernel code, establishing themselves as a newbie

- Called out the unfriendliness of the maintainers to newbies and non-expects

- Accused the maintainer of having preconceived biases

An empathetic reading of their response is that they really are a newbie trying to be helpful and got defensive after feeling attacked. But a cynical reading of their response is that they're attempting to exploiting high-visibility social issues to pressure or coerce the maintainers into accepting patches from a known bad actor.

The cynical interpretation is as much social-exploit-vector vulnerability research as what they did before. Considering how they deflected on the maintainer's concerns stemming from their prior behavior and immediately pulled a whole bunch of hot-button social issues into the conversation at the same time, the cynical interpretation seems at least plausible.

[1] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-nfs/YH5%2Fi7OvsjSmqADv@kroah.c...

[2] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-nfs/YH%2FfM%2FTsbmcZzwnX@kroah...