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: <9e471218-35a2-4e22-8826-40576919e737@lucifer.local>
Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2025 19:24:13 +0100
From: Lorenzo Stoakes <lorenzo.stoakes@...cle.com>
To: Sasha Levin <sashal@...nel.org>
Cc: Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>, 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 02:10:26PM -0400, Sasha Levin wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 30, 2025 at 06:59:09PM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
> > 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.
>
> This is exactly my argument Al :)
>
> You, as a maintainer, should be able to just reject patches without
> having to provide a technical explanation for each patch you ignore.
>
> If someone new comes along and bombards you with AI generated crap and
> useless review comments, you should be able to just block him and point
> to something under Documentation/ that will support that decision.

I'm in alignment with Al and your view here FWIW!

Though I do think Steven has a point in that there must be a _good reason_
that aligns with the community for doing so, and it shouldn't be arbitrary.

LLMs do throw up an interesting new conundrum here in that they sort of
fall between two posts on this so we probably need to be explicit in saying
that it is up to maintainers in this AI doc in my view.

Cheers, Lorenzo