Re: [PATCH v3 3/3] Documentation: security-bugs: clarify requirements for AI-assisted reports

Greg KH <[email protected]>
Newsgroups org.kernel.vger.workflows,org.kernel.vger.linux-doc,org.kernel.vger.linux-kernel
Message-ID <2026051353-apricot-kleenex-fa57@gregkh>
On Tue, May 12, 2026 at 11:21:42AM -0600, Jonathan Corbet wrote:
> Willy Tarreau <[email protected]> writes:
> 
> > AI tools are increasingly used to assist in bug discovery. While these
> > tools can identify valid issues, reports that are submitted without
> > manual verification often lack context, contain speculative impact
> > assessments, or include unnecessary formatting. Such reports increase
> > triage effort, waste maintainers' time and may be ignored.
> >
> > Reports where the reporter has verified the issue and the proposed fix
> > typically meet quality standards. This documentation outlines specific
> > requirements for length, formatting, and impact evaluation to reduce
> > the effort needed to deal with these reports.
> >
> > Cc: Greg KH <[email protected]>
> > Acked-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <[email protected]>
> > Reviewed-by: Leon Romanovsky <[email protected]>
> > Signed-off-by: Willy Tarreau <[email protected]>
> > ---
> >  Documentation/process/security-bugs.rst | 57 +++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >  1 file changed, 57 insertions(+)
> 
> One nit:
> 
> > +  * **Impact Evaluation**: Many AI-generated reports lack an understanding of
> > +    the kernel's threat model and go to great lengths inventing theoretical
> > +    consequences.
> 
> If only we had a shiny new document describing that threat model that we
> could reference here... :)

Ah yes, a link to that would make things better, but don't we have that
elsewhere in this series?

thanks,

greg k-h
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.