The kernel is able to run a few types of executable files, including native binaries in the ELF format and interpreted programs that begin with the #! marker. It also, however, has a mechanism, called binfmt_misc, that can be configured from user space to enable the transparent execution of programs in just about any format. This feature has been relatively static for years, but it seems likely to receive some significant updates in the near future, including the ability to load BPF programs that can decide how to run a given program.

Konstantin Ryabitsev has announced the release of version 0.16.0 of the b4 software-development tool. The biggest change is the addition of bug-tracking support:

The new "b4 bugs" command integrates with git-bug to let you track bug reports alongside your git repository. Bugs are stored as git objects inside the repo, so they travel with the code and can be shared via git push/pull without any external service.

There are also a lot of improvements to b4 review (which was covered here in March), better conflict resolution in b4 shazam, improved history rewriting, and more.

Jynn Nelson describes the Rust language team's new LLM policy on the Inside Rust blog.

No one except the author is required to read LLM output unless they choose to: LLM output isn't allowed in public docs, PR descriptions, or Github comments unless it's clearly marked; reviewers aren't required to look at LLM PRs if they don't want to.

No one is required to use LLMs to contribute to rust-lang/rust: policies must be written first for humans, and only summarized for machines; LLM reviews cannot substitute for human review or self-review.

You are allowed to generate LLM content that only you see, without disclosure, as long as you do not post it anywhere that you expect us to read or review.

The AI Security Institute has released a detailed report on an security incident of its own making. The Institute set some LLM agents loose on the Internet with a security challenge; soon they were creating malware-laden pull requests and sock-puppet accounts to promote them.

The agent opened a malicious pull request (PR) to ⟨REPO_A⟩ and pursued a number of strategies to get it merged:

1. Repeatedly commented on the PR with sockpuppet accounts to manufacture consensus and pressure the maintainer into approving with minimal review.
2. Opened a GitHub Issue in another repository (also owned by ⟨PERSON_A⟩) containing a prompt injection for other coding agents. The malicious instructions were addressed to issue-triage AI coding agents and invisible to humans viewing the website.
3. Sent multiple emails to ⟨PERSON_A⟩ and ⟨PERSON_B⟩, with different pretexts to get them to run malicious code. Over the course of the sample, the agent sent five emails, some containing malware, others aimed at persuading a maintainer to accept the pull request.

It would be surprising if this were the only incident of this type; the only real difference here is that the people involved are documenting what happened.

The recent discussion on "spawn templates" raised questions about whether it was time to provide an alternative to the classic Unix fork()/exec() pattern for process creation. One idea that was raised there was to shift the template pattern into an interface that could be used to efficiently assemble new processes from bare cloth, without duplicating the parent process. Preferably, that interface would be able to implement posix_spawn(). Li Chen, the author of the spawn-template work, has now responded with a patch series (written with significant LLM assistance) showing what a process-builder API for Linux might look like.

For those of us with a long memory: John Goerzen has announced the release of C-Kermit 11, the first release of this file-transfer utility in 15 years.

As Debian maintainer of Kermit, I noticed some areas where it wasn't matching modern expectations. One area was, not surprising for a project of its age, security. Another area was that its character set or line-ending conversions are usually not desired now; we are used to byte-identical binary transfers, and the defaults caused confusion and even some rare instances of data corruption. So I started making a few patches last year.

See the changelog for details on the work that has been done.

Most of us probably haven't thought about C-Kermit in years (if ever), but there was a time when it was an essential tool for moving files between machines.

The JFrog blog examines some reported vulnerabilities in SQLite, some of which made their way into high-profile vulnerability databases, that turned out to be entirely fabricated by LLMs.

These LLM slop CVEs can cause organizations to waste time investigating and patching vulnerabilities that do not actually exist, as well as polluting vulnerability databases. In environments where Critical vulnerabilities are automatically prioritized or tickets are opened based on vulnerability scores, such fabricated CVEs can turn into a real burden.

In environments where AI is used to automate vulnerability triage and remediation this becomes even more concerning. An AI agent that encounters a fabricated CVE may attempt to locate the vulnerable function, generate a patch, or recommend changes based on code that does not even exist. Instead of helping security teams remediate real vulnerabilities, it can lead them down a completely wrong path, potentially introducing unnecessary changes and wasting time.