Note, LLMs are very good at finding suspect “security issues” in kernel code these days. But even with the best of the current and next generation tools, at least 1/3 of the results they generate are flat out wrong or harmful. So, if you think your LLM-found/fixed issue in a drivers/staging/ file is really valid, it’s fine to submit it BUT you must have first tested it on the actual hardware for the driver, and described how you have done so, in order for us to be willing to take the change.
Actually proving that C code is correct is not easy.
Having a human developer manually write code that is less harmful/wrong, and doesn’t require proof, is probably easier.
Except a good programmer will have proof, in the form of at minimum manual tests that exercise the exact issue. A good programmer will have automated tests that clearly assert the behavior in question.
It genuinely boggles my mind when people whine about having to prove what the AI said… THEY SHOULD’VE BEEN DOING THAT THE WHOLE FUCKING TIME in their entire career!
No one proves their code is correct except in extremely niche cases. No idea what you’re talking about.
Maybe think of test driven development not like proving the code is correct, but failing to prove it’s broken.
We’re talking about different kind of proofs.
Proving a program is correct requires a formal specification and a formal verification with mathematics and/or formal methods. ie proving the behavior and result perfectly match specification for all possible inputs.
A test only proves that a program 1) returns the expected output for a specific input, or limited set of inputs, and 2) appears to behave correctly, ie there may be undefined behaviour but they don’t cause an immediate crash.
lol no. Absolutely no. In any way. Ever. A bug either works or it doesn’t. The fact you think I’m talking about something else means you are already cooked, utterly and completely. Sad.
So you prove you fixed the bug. How do you test to prove you didn’t introduce another?