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: <1bd04ce1-87c0-4e23-b155-84f7235f6072@redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2025 12:47:55 +0200
From: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
To: Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>, 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
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] Add agent coding assistant configuration to Linux
 kernel

On 28.07.25 12:37, Greg KH wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 28, 2025 at 11:27:48AM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>> This must not be the new mechanism to DoS kernel maintainers with AI slop.
> 
> I will note that we are already getting this kind of "slop" today, with
> the numbers going up on a weekly basis.  Be lucky if you haven't seen it
> in your subsystem yet...

It's getting more (but in core-mm not too bad for now), and I hope that 
there will be a reasonable "use of AI" policy for the kernel soon.

At some point I even assumed Sasha was AI-slopping us [1].

We cannot keep complaining about maintainer overload and, at the same 
time, encourage people to bombard us with even more of that stuff.

Clearly flagging stuff as AI-generated can maybe help. But really, what 
we need is a proper AI policy. I think QEMU did a good job (again, maybe 
too strict, not sure).

I'll note one interesting thing in the QEMU commit I linked:

"Thus far though, this is has not been matched by a broadly
accepted legal interpretation of the licensing implications for code
generator outputs. While the vendors may claim there is no problem and
a free choice of license is possible, they have an inherent conflict
of interest in promoting this interpretation."

[1] 
https://lkml.kernel.org/r/a4d8b292-154a-4d14-90e4-6c822acf1cfb@redhat.com

-- 
Cheers,

David / dhildenb