linux-kernel - Re: [RFC 0/2] Add AI coding assistant configuration to Linux kernel

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20250725125906.1db40a7f@kernel.org>
Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2025 12:59:06 -0700
From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc: Sasha Levin <sashal@...nel.org>, workflows@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kees@...nel.org,
 konstantin@...uxfoundation.org, corbet@....net, josh@...htriplett.org
Subject: Re: [RFC 0/2] Add AI coding assistant configuration to Linux kernel

On Fri, 25 Jul 2025 15:00:46 -0400 Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Fri, 25 Jul 2025 11:41:14 -0700
> Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org> wrote:
> > On Fri, 25 Jul 2025 13:53:56 -0400 Sasha Levin wrote:  
> > > 	Co-developed-by: Claude claude-opus-4-20250514
> > > 	---
> > > 	 Documentation/power/opp.rst | 2 +-
> > > 	 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)    
> > 
> > I think we should suggest that the tag is under --- ?
> > It's only relevant during the review. Once the patch is committed 
> > whether the code was organic or generated by Corp XYZ's Banana AI
> > is just free advertising..  
> 
> What's the difference between that and others using their corporate email?
> I even add (Google) to my SoB to denote who is paying me to do the work.

To be clear, it's not my main point, my main point is that 
the information is of no proven use right now. As long as
committer follows the BKP of adding Link: https://patch.msgid.link/...
we can find the metadata later.

We never found the need to attach the exact version of smatch / sparse
/ cocci that found the bug or "wrote" a patch. Let us not overreact to
the AI tools.

> Also, I would argue that it would be useful in the change log as if there's
> a bug in the generated code, you know who or *what* to blame. Especially if
> there is a pattern to be found.

This touches on explainability of AI. Perhaps the metadata would be
interesting for XAI research... not sure that's enough to be lugging
those tags in git history.