Re: How to fix problems with the sashiko review model

On Wed, 2026-07-22 at 11:55 -0400, James Bottomley wrote:
> On Wed, 2026-07-22 at 11:39 -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > On Wed, 22 Jul 2026 16:25:03 +0200
> > Johannes Berg <[email protected]> wrote:
> >=20
> > > There's also a risk thing - if you erroneously get a report for
> > > SCSI (as you did, IIUC) then you can opt out at that point and not
> > > worry about it again.
> > >=20
> > > If we erroneously _don't_ get a report for something that didn't
> > > speak up because they're not on the list, didn't dare say anything,
> > > didn't pay attention, etc. then nobody ever knows until someone
> > > starts exploiting it?
> >=20
> > I agree with Johannes here. It's one thing to get an annoying report
> > that says "You can be compromised by your hardware" when the hardware
> > is trusted. I have the same issue with boot parameters. But I rather
> > opt-in than have the case that I'm the odd one out where my hardware
> > is not trustworthy, but I don't know I have to take action to have it
> > checked.
>=20
> The thing is it's not just sashiko.  Various AI driven patchers seem to
> be using the prompts, which has lead to a slew of malicious hardware
> fixes being sent to linux-scsi and I'm getting a bit worn out replying
> to them saying that's not in our threat model.
>=20
> So I figured why not fix the problem at source.

I don't think anyone's saying you shouldn't (fix  the problem at the
source), as far as I'm concerned we're just debating the merits of opt-
in vs. opt-out :)

johannes