Re: [PATCH v2] [PATCH v2] drm/i915/gem: Fix UAF race in eb_relocate_vma

[Matthew Brost <matthew.brost@intel.com>]

On Tue, Apr 07, 2026 at 09:46:42AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Tue, 7 Apr 2026 at 09:38, Joonas Lahtinen
> <joonas.lahtinen@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> >
> > The big question is, what stance to take on a value of AI generated low
> > quality reproducer code which was accompanied by wall of AI slop which

The reproducers from what I've seen are complete slot.

> > caused hours of time get wasted on debunking the hallucinations?
> 
> I don't th8nk there are any good rules.
> 
> Some of the AI reports we get are great, with no slop in sight and
> finding really subtle and real bugs.
> 
> And others are very much not.

+1?

I dealt with some complete AI slop today reporting a hallucination.
It was a subtle reference-counting issue that, if well documented,
probably shouldn’t have been flagged. IMO, it’s an opportunity to clean
up the code or at least document why it works. Yes, annoying, even more
so if less actively maintained status—but in general it flags hand-wavy,
questionable code that needs an explanation.

Conversely, today on fresh code, Sashiko immediately flagged very
subtle, likely nearly impossible-to-hit issues, which I appreciated, and
closed.

> 
> In general, I don't think that's all that different from bug reports
> from actual humans ;^/

So yea, problably worth a look at reports unless want to orphan code.

Matt

> 
> So I'd suggest just fixing the bugs that are noticed, and giving
> credit appropriate to how good the report was.
> 
>            Linus