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: <158707d7-6729-4bb6-bc72-7556d11bfaef@lucifer.local>
Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2025 16:34:28 +0100
From: Lorenzo Stoakes <lorenzo.stoakes@...cle.com>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc: Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>, Sasha Levin <sashal@...nel.org>, 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 11:27:53AM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Mon, 28 Jul 2025 11:52:47 +0100
> Lorenzo Stoakes <lorenzo.stoakes@...cle.com> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Jul 28, 2025 at 12:35:02PM +0200, Greg KH wrote:
> > > > So to me:
> > > >
> > > > - We should establish an official kernel AI policy document.
> > >
> > > Steven Rostedt is working on this right now, hopefully he has something
> > > "soon".
> >
> > Great! Thanks for looking at that Steve.
> >
> > I think a key element here has to be maintainer opt-in.
> >
>
> I had started looking into what to write, as in the TAB meeting we were
> going to pass a document around before we posted it to the mailing list,
> but then I was made aware of this thread:
>
>   https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20250724175439.76962-1-linux@treblig.org/
>
> 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.

I'm not at all a fan of having a small entry hidden away in the submitting
patches doc, this is a really major issue that needs special consideration
and whose scope may change over time, so a dedicated document seems more
appropriate.

Thanks, Lorenzo