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: <a1022055-52bd-4948-9399-908b29ca140a@lucifer.local>
Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2025 17:59:25 +0100
From: Lorenzo Stoakes <lorenzo.stoakes@...cle.com>
To: Sasha Levin <sashal@...nel.org>
Cc: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>, 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,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        "Dr. David Alan Gilbert" <linux@...blig.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] Add agent coding assistant configuration to Linux
 kernel

On Wed, Jul 30, 2025 at 12:36:25PM -0400, Sasha Levin wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 30, 2025 at 12:18:29PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > On Wed, 30 Jul 2025 16:34:28 +0100
> > Lorenzo Stoakes <lorenzo.stoakes@...cle.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > Which looked like someone else (now Cc'd on this thread) took it public,
> > > > and I wanted to see where that ended. I didn't want to start another
> > > > discussion when there's already two in progress.
> > >
> > > OK, but having a document like this is not in my view optional - we must
> > > have a clear, stated policy and one which ideally makes plain that it's
> > > opt-in and maintainers may choose not to take these patches.
> >
> > That sounds pretty much exactly as what I was stating in our meeting. That
> > is, it is OK to submit a patch written with AI but you must disclose it. It
> > is also the right of the Maintainer to refuse to take any patch that was
> > written in AI. They may feel that they want someone who fully understands
>
> This should probably be a stronger statement if we don't have it in the
> docs yet: a maintainer can refuse to take any patch, period.
>
> > what that patch does, and AI can cloud the knowledge of that patch from the
> > author.
>
> Maybe we should unify this with the academic research doc we already
> have?
>
> This way we can extend MAINTAINERS to indicate which subsystems are
> more open to research work (drivers/staging/ comes to mind) vs ones that
> aren't.
>
> Some sort of a "traffic light" system:
>
>  1. Green: the subsystem is happy to receive patches from any source.
>
>  2. Yellow: "If you're unfamiliar with the subsystem and using any
>  tooling to generate your patches, please have a reviewed-by from a
>  trusted developer before sending your patch".
>
>  3. No tool-generated patches without prior maintainer approval.

This sounds good, with a default on red. Which would enforce the opt-in
part.

>
> --
> Thanks,
> Sasha