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: <df188552-c2dd-4cb7-9f6a-74e05e677dfc@lucifer.local>
Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2025 11:52:47 +0100
From: Lorenzo Stoakes <lorenzo.stoakes@...cle.com>
To: Greg KH <greg@...ah.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 12:35:02PM +0200, Greg KH wrote:
> > 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".

Great! Thanks for looking at that Steve.

I think a key element here has to be maintainer opt-in.

>
> > - This should be discussed at the maintainers summit before proceeding.
>
> Sounds reasonable as well.

Thanks.

>
> 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.

That'd be ideal, but I think either way we need to be clear to the humans
running these things what the rules are.

One thing to note is that I struggled to get an LLM to read MAINTAINERS
properly recently (it assured me, with absolute confidence, that the SLAB
ALLOCATOR section was in fact 'SLAB ALLOCATORS' + provided me with
completely incorrect contents, and told me that if I didn't believe it I
should go check :)

So at all times I think ensuring the human element is aware that they need
to do some kind of checking/filtering is key.

But that can be handled by a carefully worded policy document.

>
> > 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?

Right, but I think it's a whole other level when it's a subscription
service. I realise we have to be practical, but it's just something to be
aware of.

Perhaps an entry in the AI doc along the lines of 'provision of
configuration for a service is not advocating for that service, it is
simply provided for convenience' or similar might help.

Thanks, Lorenzo