linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 00/28] Eliminate Dying Memory Cgroup

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <krpcb6uc5yu75eje7ypq46oamkobmd5maqfbn266vbroyltika@td6kecoz4lzu>
Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2025 20:48:54 -0800
From: Shakeel Butt <shakeel.butt@...ux.dev>
To: Qi Zheng <qi.zheng@...ux.dev>
Cc: Roman Gushchin <roman.gushchin@...ux.dev>, hannes@...xchg.org, 
	hughd@...gle.com, mhocko@...e.com, muchun.song@...ux.dev, david@...nel.org, 
	lorenzo.stoakes@...cle.com, ziy@...dia.com, harry.yoo@...cle.com, imran.f.khan@...cle.com, 
	kamalesh.babulal@...cle.com, axelrasmussen@...gle.com, yuanchu@...gle.com, weixugc@...gle.com, 
	chenridong@...weicloud.com, mkoutny@...e.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org, 
	hamzamahfooz@...ux.microsoft.com, apais@...ux.microsoft.com, lance.yang@...ux.dev, 
	linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, cgroups@...r.kernel.org, 
	Qi Zheng <zhengqi.arch@...edance.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 00/28] Eliminate Dying Memory Cgroup

On Tue, Dec 30, 2025 at 12:25:31PM +0800, Qi Zheng wrote:
> 
> 
[...]
> > > 
> > > Thank you for running the AI review for this patchset, but please do not
> > > directly send the raw data from the AI review to the community, as this
> > > is no different from automated review by a robot.
> > 
> > Hi Qi,
> > 
> > I don't know why you're so negative towards it. It's been great at
> 
> No, I don't object to having a dedicated robot to do this.
> 
> > finding pretty tricky bugs often missed by human reviewers. In no way
> > it's a replacement for human reviews, but if a robot can find real
> > issues and make the kernel more reliable and safe, I'm in.
> 
> I just think you should do a preliminary review of the AI review results
> instead of sending them out directly. Otherwise, if everyone does this,
> the community will be full of bots.
> 
> No?
> 

We don't want too many bots but we definitely want at least one AI
review bot. Now we have precedence of BPF and networking subsystem and
the results I have seen are really good. I think the MM community needs
to come together and decide on the formalities of AI review process and
I see Roman is doing some early experimentation and result looks great.

Shakeel