Post #935211
2026-03-30 06:49 UTC
Replies (8)
-
@TheStroyer@mastodon.social 2026-03-30 06:54
@gregkh could it be LLM's discovering the 'security vulnerability' and not understanding the threat model? Not sure why there would be 5 at the same time though
-
@aho@mastodon.social 2026-03-30 06:58
@gregkh someone used LLM to generate them?
-
@never_released@mastodon.social 2026-03-30 07:12
@gregkh > Is there some big usb-over-ip installation somewhere Probably not that security sensitive because on the same machine but WSL2 https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/wsl/connect-usb
-
@lkundrak@metalhead.club 2026-03-30 07:36
@gregkh there is a small installation of two computers at my home that works well since this was out-of-tree
-
@ffmancera@mastodon.social 2026-03-30 07:51
@gregkh a pattern I have seen recently is new people on kernel reporting bugs on random subsystems. I am pretty sure they just feed the code to a LLM and send whatever it found. E.g yesterday I got a review on a patch I sent a year ago on protocol that is pretty uncommon. After talking to the reviewer, it is clearly an AI. It is by the way, the same person that sent a 22 patches series for rtl8723bs that you needed to review :/
-
@atjn@mastodon.online 2026-03-30 07:58
@gregkh My guess is someone made a novel prompt that made their LLM focus specifically on the USBIP protocol. It found and reported a minor issue. Now all other LLMs have the original report in their model, so they naturally focus on the USBIP protocol when presented with generic prompts, such as "find a vuln in the kernel", and now that effect is snowballing.
-
@9lore@donotsta.re 2026-03-30 10:49
@gregkh Maybe vulns used by commercial law enforcement malware like cellbrite?
-
@gregkh@social.kernel.org 2026-04-01 09:22
Ok, it's now 6, something is odd is happening...