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: <aId5x_ocOiWICyZa@lappy>
Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2025 09:23:19 -0400
From: Sasha Levin <sashal@...nel.org>
To: Lorenzo Stoakes <lorenzo.stoakes@...cle.com>
Cc: Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>, 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 02:13:01PM +0100, Lorenzo Stoakes wrote:
>On Mon, Jul 28, 2025 at 08:45:19AM -0400, Sasha Levin wrote:
>> > 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.
>>
>> Right. The prupose of this series is not to create a new LLM policy but
>> rather try and enforce our existing set of policies on LLMs.
>
>I get that, but as you can see from my original reply, my concern is more
>as to the non-technical consequences of this series.
>
>I retain my view that we need an explicit AI policy doc first, and ideally
>this would be tempered by input at the maintainer's summit before any of
>this proceeds.
>
>I think adding anything like this before that would have unfortunate
>unintended consequences.
>
>And as a maintainer who does a fair bit of review, I'm likely to be on the
>front lines to that :)

Oh, appologies, I'm not trying to push for this to be included urgently:
if there's interest in waiting with this until after maintainer's
summit/LPC I don't have any objection with that.

My point was more that I want to get this series in a "happy" state so
we have it available whenever we come up with a policy.

I'm thinking that no matter what we land on at the end, we'll need
something like this patch series to try and enforce that on the LLM side
of things.

-- 
Thanks,
Sasha