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: <20250730175909.GO222315@ZenIV>
Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2025 18:59:09 +0100
From: Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
To: Sasha Levin <sashal@...nel.org>
Cc: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
	Lorenzo Stoakes <lorenzo.stoakes@...cle.com>,
	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 01:46:47PM -0400, Sasha Levin wrote:

> Similarily the argument around not trusting the code is equivalent to
> not trusting the person who sent the code in. AI doesn't send patches on
> it's own - humans do. This is basically saying "I didn't even look at
> your patch because I don't trust you".

One name: Markus Elfring.  Ever tried to reason with that one?  Or Hillf
Danton, for that matter.

And I absolutely will refuse to take patches from somebody who would
consistently fail to explain why the patch is correct and needed.  Sasha,
this is the elephant in the room: we *ALREADY* get "contributions" that
very clearly stem from "$TOOL says so, what else do you need?" kind of
reasoning and some of that dreck ends up in the tree.  AI will serve as
a force multiplier for those...  persons.