linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 07/11] firmware: qcom_scm: Add qcom_scm_pas_get_rsc

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: <0741fed1-33d3-431d-8cf3-04b47fe80b03@kernel.org>
Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2025 08:22:10 +0200
From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>
To: Bjorn Andersson <andersson@...nel.org>,
 Konrad Dybcio <konradybcio@...nel.org>,
 Vikash Garodia <quic_vgarodia@...cinc.com>,
 Dikshita Agarwal <quic_dikshita@...cinc.com>,
 Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@...nel.org>,
 Mathieu Poirier <mathieu.poirier@...aro.org>,
 Abhinav Kumar <abhinav.kumar@...ux.dev>,
 Bryan O'Donoghue <bryan.odonoghue@...aro.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, linux-media@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-remoteproc@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 07/11] firmware: qcom_scm: Add
 qcom_scm_pas_get_rsc_table() to get resource table

On 21/08/2025 19:20, Mukesh Ojha wrote:
>>
>> Srsly, what sort of AI hallucinated slop it is?
>>
>> I think this is pretty close to proof that your submission does not meet
>> criteria of open source contribution.
>>
>> Did you run any of this through your legal process in Qualcomm?
>>
>> I don't trust any part of this code.
> 
> I don't know what made you think that way. There could be confusion with
> my writing and may not have expressed the thing i wanted.
Commits were written by two different people, but signed only by you.
They have 100% different style and the other looks like taken out of
ChatGPT.

Editing patches post factum is another reason.

Reasoning here is typical for LLM - first claim something ("static is
possible"), then claim another ("dynamic are always") and then connect
these two to create false third statement (static and dynamic are always).

You got three strong indications. So this is what made me think that way.

Best regards,
Krzysztof