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: <20250730152718.2f12b927@gandalf.local.home>
Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2025 15:27:18 -0400
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To: Sasha Levin <sashal@...nel.org>
Cc: 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, 30 Jul 2025 13:46:47 -0400
Sasha Levin <sashal@...nel.org> wrote:

> >My point here is that AI can now add questions that maintainers can't
> >answer. Is it really legal? Can the maintainer trust it? Yes, these too can
> >fall under the "technical reasons" but having a clear policy that states
> >that a maintainer may not want to even bother with AI generated code can
> >perhaps give the maintainer something to point to if push comes to shove.  
> 
> I don't think that those are technical aspects.

I didn't either, but I was just saying one could possibly argue that they
are. But that also states why it should be called out explicitly. As
refusing AI patches may not be a technical issue where all other refusals
should be.

> >I wouldn't think so. This is about submitting patches and a statement there
> >may be easier found by those about to submit an AI patch. Just because they
> >are using AI doesn't mean they'll think it's an academic research.  
> 
> Not in the sense that AI is research, but more that this is code coming
> from someone who is unable to reliably verify the patch that is being
> sent in.

The issue I have is that the person sending in the patch may not know that
they don't understand the patch. We've had those in the past. I could
imagine AI creating more of these kinds of submissions.

> 
> The source can be academic research, AI, or whatever else comes along.
> 
> It'll just be nice to have a unified set of rules around it. Otherwise
> the amount of combinations will explode (in which category do we put in
> academic researchers sending in AI generated code?).

Research folks know they are doing research. Those using AI may likely will
not, even if they are. Hence why I would like this outside of the academic
research document.

> 
> >> 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.  
> >
> >Perhaps. Of course there's the Coccinelle scripts that fix a bunch of code
> >around the kernel that will like be ignored in this. But this may still be
> >a good start.  
> 
> It'll be hard to draw a line here, so I suggest we don't try.

Agreed. But perhaps we could have a note that some subsystems expect all
submissions done by a human. Although treewide patches that change
interfaces that are fixed up by coccinelle may not have a choice.

> 
> Are AI generated .cocci semantic patches that are then transformed into
> C patches and sent in by a human ok?
> 

Up to the maintainer.

-- Steve