Re: [PATCH 0/4] Add agent coding assistant configuration to Linux kernel

Lorenzo Stoakes
2025-07-28T13:28:54Z

On Mon, Jul 28, 2025 at 09:23:19AM -0400, Sasha Levin wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 28, 2025 at 02:13:01PM +0100, Lorenzo Stoakes wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 28, 2025 at 08:45:19AM -0400, Sasha Levin wrote:
> > > > So at all times I think ensuring the human element is aware that they need
> > > > to do some kind of checking/filtering is key.
> > > >
> > > > But that can be handled by a carefully worded policy document.
> > >
> > > Right. The prupose of this series is not to create a new LLM policy but
> > > rather try and enforce our existing set of policies on LLMs.
> >
> > I get that, but as you can see from my original reply, my concern is more
> > as to the non-technical consequences of this series.
> >
> > I retain my view that we need an explicit AI policy doc first, and ideally
> > this would be tempered by input at the maintainer's summit before any of
> > this proceeds.
> >
> > I think adding anything like this before that would have unfortunate
> > unintended consequences.
> >
> > And as a maintainer who does a fair bit of review, I'm likely to be on the
> > front lines to that :)
>
> Oh, appologies, I'm not trying to push for this to be included urgently:
> if there's interest in waiting with this until after maintainer's
> summit/LPC I don't have any objection with that.

Awesome, thanks; yeah I think this is the best approach to ensure we have
our ducks in a row.

>
> My point was more that I want to get this series in a "happy" state so
> we have it available whenever we come up with a policy.

Ack!

>
> I'm thinking that no matter what we land on at the end, we'll need
> something like this patch series to try and enforce that on the LLM side
> of things.

Sure, practically speaking it's unlikely that the decision will be
'absolutely not', in which case we ought to be prepared as to how to
implement what's required.

>
> --
> Thanks,
> Sasha

Cheers, Lorenzo