Google Engineers Launch "Sashiko" for Agentic AI Code Review of the Linux Kernel

4fterd4rk

oh god can we not

monksy

I think this is a great and interesting project. However, I hope that they're not doing this to submit patches to the kernel. It would be much better to layer in additional tests to exploit bugs and defects for verification of existance/fixes. (Also tests can be focused per defect.. which prevents overload) From some of the changes I'm seeing: This looks like it's doing style and structure changes, which for a codebase this size is going to add drag to existing development. (I'm supportive of cleanups.. but done on an automated basis is a bad idea) I.e. https://sashiko.dev/#/message/20260318170604.10254-1-erdemhu...

rwmj

Better to link to the site itself, or one of the reviews? For an example of a review (picked pretty much at random) see: https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/20260318151256.2590375-1-andr... The original patch series corresponding to that is: https://lkml.org/lkml/2026/3/18/1600 Edit: Here's a simpler and better example of a review: https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/20260318110848.2779003-1-liju... I'm very glad they're not spamming the mailing list.

shevy-java

Now they want to kill the Linux kernel. :( We've already seen how bug bounty projects were closed by AI spam; I think it was curl? Or some other project I don't remember right now. I think AI tools should be required, by law, to verify that what they report is actually a true bug rather than some hypothetical, hallucinated context-dependent not-quite-a-real-bug bug.

ChrisArchitect

https://github.com/sashiko-dev/sashiko ( https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47427996 )

withinrafael

Looks cool, but this site is a bit difficult for me to grok. I think the table might be slightly inside-out? The Status column appears to show internal pipeline states ("Pending", "In Review") that really only matter to the system, while Findings are buried in the column on the far right. For example, one reviewed patchset with a critical and a high finding is just causally hanging out below the fold. I couldn't immediately find a way to filter or search for severe findings. It might help to separate unreviewed patches from reviewed ones, and somehow wire the findings into the visual hierarchy better. Or perhaps I'm just off base and this is targeting a very specific Linux kernel community workflow/mindset. Just my 1c.

qainsights

They would have completely redesigned Google Gerrit.

kleiba

> Sashiko was able to find around 53% of bugs That's cool. Another interesting metric, however, would be the false positive ratio: like, I could just build a bogus system that simply marks everything as a bug and then claim "my system found 100% of all bugs!" In practice, not just the recall of a bug finding system is important but also its precision: if human reviewers get spammed with piles of alleged bug reports by something like Sashiko, most of which turn out not to be bugs at all, that noise binds resources and could undermine trust in the usefulness of the system.

mika-el

the separation between who writes and who reviews is the whole thing. I do same at smaller scale — one model writes code, different model reviews it. self-review misses things, same reason you don't review your own PRs

throwa356262

I find it interesting that this is written in Rust (not golang) and co-authored with Claude (not gemini)

TacticalCoder

Looks like a great new tool to help ship less bugs! Nitpicking on this though: > "In my measurement, Sashiko was able to find 53% of bugs based on a completely unfiltered set of 1000 recent upstream issues based on "Fixes:" tags (using Gemini 3.1 Pro). Some might say that 53% is not that impressive, but 100% of these issues were missed by human reviewers." That'd assume 100% of the issues that were fixed and used for training were not fixed following a human review. I don't buy it: it's extremely common to have a dev notice a bug in the code, without a user having ever reported the bug. I think the wording meant to say: "... but 100% of these issues were first missed by humans". My point being: the original code review by a human ain't the only code review by a human. Or put it this way: it's not as if we were writing code, shipping it, then never ever looking at that line of code again unless a bug report were to come out. It's not how development works.

simianwords

> Roman reports that Sashiko was able to find around 53% of bugs based on an unfiltered set of 1,000 recent upstream Linux kernel issues with "Fixes: " tag What does this mean?

Havoc

How do the kernel devs feel about this? Cause that seems to be the sticking point for external AI “help” - the open source devs hate it Seems to be a well funded effort though so maybe it’s better?