linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/4] Add agent 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: <2025072854-earthen-velcro-8b32@gregkh>
Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2025 12:35:02 +0200
From: Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>
To: Lorenzo Stoakes <lorenzo.stoakes@...cle.com>
Cc: Sasha Levin <sashal@...nel.org>, corbet@....net,
	linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, workflows@...r.kernel.org,
	josh@...htriplett.org, kees@...nel.org,
	konstantin@...uxfoundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	rostedt@...dmis.org, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] Add agent coding assistant configuration to Linux
 kernel

On Mon, Jul 28, 2025 at 09:42:27AM +0100, Lorenzo Stoakes wrote:
> +cc Linus
> 
> On Sun, Jul 27, 2025 at 03:57:58PM -0400, Sasha Levin wrote:
> > This patch series adds unified configuration and documentation for coding
> > agents working with the Linux kernel codebase. As coding agents
> > become increasingly common in software development, it's important to
> > establish clear guidelines for their use in kernel development.
> 
> Hi Sasha,
> 
> I feel like we need to take a step back here and consider some of the
> non-technical consqeuences of this change.
> 
> Firstly, there is no doubt whatsoever that, were this series to land, there
> would be significant press which would amount to (whether you like it or
> not) 'Linux kernel welcomes AI patches'.
> 
> I don't feel that a change of this magnitude which is likely to have this
> kind of impact should be RFC'd quietly and then, after a weekend, submitted
> ready to merge.
> 
> This change, whether you like it or not - amounts to (or at the very least,
> certainly will be perceived to be) kernel policy. And, AFAIK, we don't have
> an AI kernel policy doc yet.
> 
> So to me:
> 
> - We should establish an official kernel AI policy document.

Steven Rostedt is working on this right now, hopefully he has something
"soon".

> - This should be discussed at the maintainers summit before proceeding.

Sounds reasonable as well.

But I think that Kees and my earlier points of "the documentation should
be all that an agent needs" might aleviate many of these concerns, if
our documentation can be tweaked in a way to make it easier for
everyone, humans and bots, to understand.  That should cut down on the
"size" of this patch series a lot overall.

> In addition, it's concerning that we're explicitly adding configs for
> specific, commercial, products. This might be seen as an endorsement
> whether intended or not.

Don't we already have that for a few things already, like .editorconfig?

thanks,

greg k-h