From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from perceval.ideasonboard.com (perceval.ideasonboard.com [213.167.242.64]) (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 007B5347BC6 for ; Tue, 21 Jul 2026 22:46:45 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=213.167.242.64 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1784674008; cv=none; b=Gfgzmdx+0e1Bx8AB55P6MgqmNj7T6zOIpV6A6LwsP9i4ttii7JnHODi7cXv0GwR5F5QE3qOQTfhJPBDw0w/5ynYGamC6twYtuXf0wRzQeI8XUwTU1IEeVzIuXrV8wTqe6dHcO7iD5m+Baq5i6ypkA8EtPBfAeFs7w+1SsvJe3+E= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1784674008; c=relaxed/simple; bh=YzEZDy85dqrcs92Wg4WGWdAPpa3T9eDKBY5Fj0uTFfo=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=uLRM879uOaW+CH/Tgdc06vmtRrmsa2l6TONDjbvq7uUVvxzmCJ9V2GEzslhWHdm9zlPaB0l3jNDlk6aQn+SqllEidYgXJ6C747pkyg/V9f1ewc/7VTy13116cUfI0sg7QHcuaZ0Y3di4fvhkLtI4S3zm+AsCYU/yz6S+nt4HMuc= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=ideasonboard.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=ideasonboard.com; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=ideasonboard.com header.i=@ideasonboard.com header.b=tonppFHU; arc=none smtp.client-ip=213.167.242.64 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=ideasonboard.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=ideasonboard.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=ideasonboard.com header.i=@ideasonboard.com header.b="tonppFHU" Received: from killaraus.ideasonboard.com (2001-14ba-70f3-e800--a06.rev.dnainternet.fi [IPv6:2001:14ba:70f3:e800::a06]) by perceval.ideasonboard.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 10E44BAE; Wed, 22 Jul 2026 00:45:44 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=ideasonboard.com; s=mail; t=1784673944; bh=YzEZDy85dqrcs92Wg4WGWdAPpa3T9eDKBY5Fj0uTFfo=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=tonppFHUh26EWKLQXfa17/6EjRd2lNauwv5Ip2quIRUXcPyKCwOVzPfTg+RrhF4cR meVNsiYanQ6Am0nt3VGuZi1fPYUv/wppOCkY73kntfxgAlHkCaR5rg7jdPfcfM3FRo JNAf6AUwk/aEg6n4K3PpmXl7068yhMxIBUefj55k= Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2026 01:46:42 +0300 From: Laurent Pinchart To: Steven Rostedt 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: <20260721224642.GI536385@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> <20260721152501.0ff97e8c@gandalf.local.home> 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=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20260721152501.0ff97e8c@gandalf.local.home> On Tue, Jul 21, 2026 at 03:25:01PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote: > 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. I certainly hope so :-) > 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! As you said, it's not mutually exclusive. I'm sure Google has other kernel developers than Roman. -- Regards, Laurent Pinchart