From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from ms.lwn.net (ms.lwn.net [45.79.88.28]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7563D3A7F4F for ; Mon, 9 Mar 2026 16:33:14 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=45.79.88.28 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1773073995; cv=none; b=L14SvzVm5pBMytSRHdZ+YorYYFKP29nIBl5de46kh0faHtIDgWv74P73Fr3lfCgFTmQDFKDyZ/k9zbU0DA1jdZOIv8RR3P3aCWHxZ1fBywmF4MyHjCT4TpfTNhXyWU9PCTJ9f0k3JhxkeDaQ0AbfQiTba2k0UPt2YlGXfefa3qY= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1773073995; c=relaxed/simple; bh=6ZCoO9owkVUFe/XNG8Z1H8WQIbQlsvNfW3dDQh5snTo=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:Message-ID: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=FtzEtEfyTSlW671Z55fcwTm3u8+Nlv2tK6zt8NBO0BPj639j7ZrT2D1m2k0e5sskWJ/jz6n2YKdVJxHEpGQSEK9fODIP7qTfPgni3fbW4jdb4NXLICCY9FuBOsDDdnUqb1QNJszvt3wjPRxr1phAE4mGEQkKBuOKyF19K5L908g= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=lwn.net; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=lwn.net; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=lwn.net header.i=@lwn.net header.b=MAKCX9d0; arc=none smtp.client-ip=45.79.88.28 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=lwn.net Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=lwn.net Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=lwn.net header.i=@lwn.net header.b="MAKCX9d0" DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 ms.lwn.net BCA00411F7 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=lwn.net; s=20201203; t=1773073993; bh=6WyGNGZblQkRGzHxfiordkHSltdRWdkd+Ep/WxqfDIM=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:From; b=MAKCX9d0b6Ey0o17e/oTWqO8Br6nzTtfol6J5pLT4I7lofOEly8YnhcmyD6K23/Tm 4fIxDxFGdMBNGsaJsbNujSMb7zoiwv/y6hP0fcmUSfpYbkf2HHRL/N5vIsfEzphuyl 27Qquhk0xdcO6UorHbAsiTuiy6bjKErksjf3lc5bYRLyOlXz7q4YA6xvcN1i+8k6wn z8eZO2YIKtLWNk1ezyXUB+9eW4Wm5uenX6wczmsamuCIfXFS0e46A3SLIagIU7kF0Y R9DueGz0+TMHt7iM/5Ml8SL3GZHJ08BgjYtjDTZBjc1l+FiASCk1Kd5xeVndbTeJDv YKIWuLN5AJXag== Received: from localhost (unknown [IPv6:2601:280:4600:27b::1fe]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange ECDHE (prime256v1) server-signature ECDSA (prime256v1) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ms.lwn.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id BCA00411F7; Mon, 9 Mar 2026 16:33:13 +0000 (UTC) From: Jonathan Corbet To: Steven Rostedt , "H. Peter Anvin" Cc: Christian Brauner , tech-board-discuss@lists.linux.dev, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org, christianvanbrauner@gmail.com Subject: Re: LLM based rewrites In-Reply-To: <20260309121629.21cabc25@gandalf.local.home> References: <20260307-clean-room-6118793eb175@brauner> <20260309095705.7a6b6177@gandalf.local.home> <20260309121629.21cabc25@gandalf.local.home> Date: Mon, 09 Mar 2026 10:33:12 -0600 Message-ID: <871phtvu7r.fsf@trenco.lwn.net> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: tech-board-discuss@lists.linux.dev List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Steven Rostedt writes: > On Mon, 09 Mar 2026 08:31:03 -0700 > "H. Peter Anvin" wrote: > >> It is somewhat hard to see how that would constitute a "clean-room" >> rewrite. A clean-room rewrite entails two teams, one (the "clean" room) >> which must be certified to have never seen the code in question, and all >> communications between the two teams must be auditable. > > I was thinking the same. The argumentation that is being made (which I am trying to reproduce but am *not* advocating) is that "a clean-room rewrite is just one means to an end" and that, in this specific case, the code being rewritten was explicitly excluded from the context given to the bot (though that turns out not to entirely be the case). In theory, it only had the desired API and a set of tests available to it. The fact that every version of chardet was surely in its training data is not deemed to be relevant. jon