Re: Sashiko reviews for the LSM mailing list

On Tue, Jun 16, 2026 at 10:59=E2=80=AFAM Micka=C3=ABl Sala=C3=BCn <mic@digi=
kod.net> wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 16, 2026 at 10:11:42AM -0400, Paul Moore wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 16, 2026 at 4:49=E2=80=AFAM Micka=C3=ABl Sala=C3=BCn <mic@d=
igikod.net> wrote:
> > > On Mon, Jun 15, 2026 at 04:13:59PM -0400, Paul Moore wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Jun 15, 2026 at 11:41=E2=80=AFAM Micka=C3=ABl Sala=C3=BCn <=
[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Hi,
> > > > >
> > > > > I've been reading Sashiko's (AI bot) reviews wrt Landlock patches=
, and
> > > > > most of them were valuable.  It found issues (security or not), b=
ut it
> > > > > requires to go to https://sashiko.dev to find them, which is too =
easy to
> > > > > forget, and requires additional work from maintainers to copy or =
point
> > > > > to these reviews.  I sent a PR (currently in draft) to enable ema=
il
> > > > > replies from Sashiko to the Linux Security Module mailing list (m=
ost
> > > > > patches are already reviewed anyway):
> > > > > https://github.com/sashiko-dev/sashiko/pull/278
> > > > >
> > > > > Making such reviews broadly available can improve the quality of =
patches
> > > > > we receive without much noise, helping for all LSM-related code. =
 We can
> > > > > fine tune some email-related settings if needed.
> > > > >
> > > > > If there are any concern or question, this is the right time to s=
tart a
> > > > > discussion.
> > > >
> > > > I recently enabled Sashiko for the SELinux list to trial it there
> > > > first, with the goal of eventually bringing this topic up for the r=
est
> > > > of the LSM folks on the LSM list.
> > > >
> > > > While I think Sashiko's review comments are generally okay, you sho=
uld
> > > > have contacted the LSM mailing list folks *before* submitting a PR
> > > > that would cause an automated bot to send email to the LSM list (th=
is
> > > > applies to all automated emails, not just LLM reviews).  Please hol=
d
> > > > the PR until you have given people a chance to comment on the issue=
.
> > >
> > > As I explained just above, the PR is a draft (GitHub specific state f=
or
> > > WIP), so it cannot be merged as-is, but it is useful for reviews and =
for
> > > LSM folks to get a look if they are interested.
> > >
> > > > Personally, I'm okay with it.
> > >
> > > Looks good.  What about waiting a week to get some feedback here and
> > > then ask for a merge of the PR?
> >
> > I would suggest enabling Sashiko for the LSM list, but not enabling
> > the email replies at first.  This would allow people to view the
> > reviews and perhaps make a better informed decision.
>
> The point of this PR and the related discussion is to enable email
> replies ...

... and you've heard my opinions on that.

> the reviews are already there.

I don't believe the LSM list is being directly reviewed by sashiko.dev
at the moment (check the lists drop-down in the web UI).  Any
LSM-posted patches being reviewed are being reviewed due to a CC to a
sashiko.dev monitored list.

> As explained, my motivation for
> this change is to get reviews, and without emails I suspect almost nobody
> (will) take a look and that would not even be an experiment.  I'm saying
> that because I forgot several times to take a look and it adds more work
> to the review/maintenance.

I think it's important to allow people a chance to see what the
reviews are like before you enable an automated bot on the mailing
list.  I'm sorry you found it cumbersome to check the web UI, but a
change to what is sent to the mailing list affects more than just you.

Perhaps we do eventually enable sashiko.dev to post to the LSM list,
as I said before I have no problem with that, but I want to give
people a chance to look at the Sashiko reviews first and make a more
informed decision.

> FWIW, there are currently 41 kernel mailing lists registered:
> https://github.com/sashiko-dev/sashiko/blob/main/sashiko.dev/email_policy=
.toml

Yes, I think we can all read a configuration file.

> > > Anyway, it would not be written in
> > > stone, we can update Sashiko config with new PRs.
> >
> > It is worth noting that sashiko.dev updates are not immediate, so
> > there is a delay between a PR being merged and it taking effect.
>
> Sure and I don't think it's an issue.  It's really easy to filter
> emails on any MUA if really needed, and I'm sure the Sashiko maintainers
> would be able to fix things quickly if needed.

I think it's important to understand that not everyone approaches the
email lists the same way, and something that is a non-issue for you
might be a larger issue for someone else.

As a reminder, you are always welcome to create your own list for
Landlock if you find that the LSM list no longer meets your needs.
The only thing I ask is that any patches touching/affecting the LSM
framework are sent to the LSM list and of course any pull requests
sent to Linus should CC the LSM list.

--=20
paul-moore.com