From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from relay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0013.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.13]) (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 D0F6F46EF84 for ; Tue, 21 Jul 2026 19:24:52 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=216.40.44.13 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1784661894; cv=none; b=BypyHUVicuWjmf6DQ426bEnyih6uUiPrlTunJVZqnfjKFuD6z8MrMK51e/M6WK2qb6sp3s6x+1Ysr8wC0p//rinJLtE2LU0a91GML1j3CxC3+fad4oOJLkQE3gYr5fVaPhthQlWCyZKgVdx3FkFCQKGkdMO8U6gG9g6/xkdmNj0= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1784661894; c=relaxed/simple; bh=8VOeCTGKSamuz1dVtdzSYi66anVIRPETVlUTlzGiCvQ=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:In-Reply-To:References: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=HYtN5sjXoD8hAta1t2h52LFx4yjiyVdSSkhvHAjkZ1arD69uTrxrjQN6mu5DzvCo7oZMMeRIo1ctENRzc8AEQRtwY/1BdrxzmEMh0Ly3L0ska1tKSHN8jy3P9fR/lq3pWUtuil7bYsXexegGy6DtcqJ5rWOQICJZ7IYdhsHJ+RY= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=goodmis.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=goodmis.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=216.40.44.13 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=goodmis.org Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=goodmis.org Received: from omf11.hostedemail.com (lb01a-stub [10.200.18.249]) by unirelay05.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 121DA4023E; Tue, 21 Jul 2026 19:24:45 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [HIDDEN] (Authenticated sender: rostedt@goodmis.org) by omf11.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id B744520029; Tue, 21 Jul 2026 19:24:42 +0000 (UTC) Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2026 15:25:01 -0400 From: Steven Rostedt To: Laurent Pinchart Cc: Roman Gushchin , Mauro Carvalho Chehab , Derek Barbosa , Matthieu Baerts , Konstantin Ryabitsev , Jason Gunthorpe , users@kernel.org, Linux Media Mailing List , Stephen Finucane Subject: Re: Linking Patchwork with Sashiko? Message-ID: <20260721152501.0ff97e8c@gandalf.local.home> In-Reply-To: <20260721182509.GG536385@killaraus.ideasonboard.com> References: <20260715005909.GF1656185@killaraus.ideasonboard.com> <4928C919-7999-4E76-ADCB-F8643FED105B@linux.dev> <20260715162816.GF1778116@killaraus.ideasonboard.com> <7ia47bmw0xls.fsf@castle.c.googlers.com> <20260721182509.GG536385@killaraus.ideasonboard.com> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.20.0git84 (GTK+ 2.24.33; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-media@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Rspamd-Server: rspamout01 X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: B744520029 X-Stat-Signature: tea7ngkbdn5rz6f4rcgpcda5g6b43grc X-Session-Marker: 726F737465647440676F6F646D69732E6F7267 X-Session-ID: U2FsdGVkX19EjSpfBFYOyE+7aFpX2iwO5R6Arzw8mSE= X-HE-Tag: 1784661882-993440 X-HE-Meta: U2FsdGVkX1+Gx/Lj9FZciv1Ow4gNBF2rtM5N3hqmlg2aL3z1QaHZc5joPzUvVTWbqVcYxntHT5PMhIR+S4IkIw9ObWLtwFfxXHGEtmfvWG0XgAP841357cxBcRJSGapD40v0W1QMQ0TGkvDBOzzAHH8lVAvz77q7PfRnwkbXHI1YP6fbGR31yZtkuX9W2XXMWX8K2ufwNLonpLlzpu6q77339eY6w9x9/FkgQfPFN/FuRmk8JMBB62wmtrFKkeBoJPK0Wz+VUWGEYwnMDAXeUxv3hw2cesAd19k086HtS7qx4a/76lptTs8r5yiHsUK3DYrx6jl9w84cZk1HAliu8YA+g0IlyWwV/ZH4a9reWtvwQzSvEe1xJgdr99hE6LE7 On Tue, 21 Jul 2026 21:25:09 +0300 Laurent Pinchart wrote: > We've long known that we can't win if we treat security as a game of > whack-a-mole. Kees Cook and others have for years spent large mounts of > time and energy into securing the kernel by closing classes of > vulnerabilities. We've accepted a second programming language for kernel > development that should make memory-related bugs impossible in the first > place. In a less disruptive way, switching from C89 to C11 has enabled > features likes __free() that help make the code base safer. > > Do we need to act on security issues reported by LLMs ? For the time > being, surely. Is that enough ? No way. It's even more important today > than it used to be to make whole classes of bugs impossible in the first > place. The good news for people interested in that development is > there's lots of work to be done all across the kernel :-) > > Touting AI reviews as the solution to the security problem LLMs > generated in the first place without massively investing in kernel > hardening is in my opinion the real "putting our heads in the sand" > here. Who said the two are mutually exclusive? I believe there is still a large effort in hardening the kernel. AI reviews is totally agnostic to that effort. Roman said at LSF/MM/BPF that he's the only one working on Sashikio at Google. Yes, Google is investing billions (if not trillions) of dollars into AI, but that has nothing to do with the Linux kernel. Roman has simply tapped into that effort to allow the Linux kernel to take advantage of that investment. It really sounds like you want companies to move effort from AI into the Linux kernel hardening. If Google did that, all it would do is move Roman from working on Sashiko to working on hardening the kernel. I think Roman is doing a hell of a lot more for the Linux kernel by staying with Sashiko! -- Steve