Search arXiv⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2603.24825

Learning From Developers: Towards Reliable Patch Validation at Scale for Linux

Chih-En Lin·Attreyee Mukherjee·Ajay Rawat·Ruqi Zhang·Pedro Fonseca
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Patch reviewing is critical for software development, especially in distributed open-source development, which highly depends on voluntary work, such as Linux. This paper studies the past 10 years of patch reviews of the Linux memory management subsystem to characterize the challenges involved in patch reviewing at scale. Our study reveals that the review process is still primarily reliant on human effort despite a wide-range of automatic checking tools. Although kernel developers strive to review all patch proposals, they struggle to keep up with the increasing volume of submissions and depend significantly on a few developers for these reviews. To help scale the patch review process, we introduce FLINT, a patch validation system framework that synthesizes insights from past discussions among developers and automatically analyzes patch proposals for compliance. FLINT employs a rule-based analysis informed by past discussions among developers and an LLM that does not require training or fine-tuning on new data, and can continuously improve with minimum human effort. FLINT uses a multi-stage approach to efficiently distill the essential information from past discussions. Later, when a patch proposal needs review, FLINT retrieves the relevant validation rules for validation and generates a reference-backed report that developers can easily interpret and validate. FLINT targets bugs that traditional tools find hard to detect, ranging from maintainability issues, e.g., design choices and naming conventions, to complex concurrency issues, e.g., deadlocks and data races. FLINT detected 2 new issues in Linux v6.18 development cycle and 7 issues in previous versions. FLINT achieves 21% and 14% of higher ground-truth coverage on concurrency bugs than the baseline with LLM only. Moreover, FLINT achieves a 35% false positive rate, which is lower than the baseline.

Explore related subjects

cs.SEcs.AI

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Chih-En Lin, Attreyee Mukherjee, Ajay Rawat, Ruqi Zhang, Pedro Fonseca. 2026-03-25. Learning From Developers: Towards Reliable Patch Validation at Scale for Linux. https://arxiv.org/abs/2603.24825

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

Is Vibe Coding Safe? Benchmarking Vulnerability of Agent-Generated Code in Real-World Tasks

Vibe coding is a new software development paradigm in which human engineers prompt a large language model (LLM) agent to complete complex coding tasks with little supervision. Although vibe coding is increasingly adopted, is the generated code really safe to deploy in production? To investigate this question, we propose SUSVIBES, a benchmark consisting of 186 feature-request software engineering tasks from real-world open-source projects, for which, human programmers committed vulnerable implementations. We evaluate 12 widely used coding agentic settings with frontier models on the benchmark. Disturbingly, all agents perform poorly in terms of software security. Although 57% of the solutions from SWE-Agent with Claude 4 Sonnet are functionally correct, only 11.8% are secure. Further experiments demonstrate that preliminary security strategies, such as augmenting the feature request with vulnerability hints, cannot mitigate these security issues. Our findings raise serious concerns about the widespread adoption of vibe coding, particularly in security-sensitive applications. The code and dataset are available at https://github.com/LeiLiLab/susvibes. The leaderboard is at https://leililab.github.io/susvibes-leaderboard.

cs.SE↗
arXiv2026

Why3-py: A Tool for Formal Verification of Hypothesis Testing and Meta-Analysis in Python

The reproducibility crisis in scientific research has received widespread recognition, thereby increasing the importance of meta-analyses that integrate statistical analyses from multiple studies. However, statistical methods often have ambiguous and implicit underlying assumptions, which can lead to their erroneous applications and interpretations. To address this issue, we propose a formal verification framework for statistical Python programs. Specifically, we present Why3-py, a Python front-end for the Why3 verification platform that transforms Python code into verification-oriented WhyML representations, addressing the challenges arising from Python's dynamic typing and runtime polymorphism. Furthermore, we extend the StatWhy tool to support the verification of meta-analysis methods. These tools enable meta-analysts to identify overlooked assumptions and misuse of analyses, and to verify the correct use of hypothesis testing and meta-analysis methods in Python code.

cs.SE↗
arXiv2026

What is the Difference Between Me and You? Benchmarking the Quality Gap Between Human-Written and AI-Generated Code

AI coding assistants are becoming co-authors of production software, yet their evaluation centers on functional correctness, leaving open whether their code differs from human code in the quality dimensions dominating lifecycle cost. We compare human-written and AI-generated code at scale: 787,562 function pairs across Python, Java, and C, each human function mined from open-source repositories paired with implementations generated from its docstring by three AI assistants (OpenAI GPT models, DeepSeek-Coder, Qwen2.5-Coder). We characterize structural complexity and statistical naturalness, and map static-analysis findings onto Orthogonal Defect Classification for defects and the Common Weakness Enumeration for vulnerabilities, making authors and languages directly comparable. AI-generated code is structurally compressed and stylistically templated: roughly half the size and branching of human code, clustering apart at the style level. Defect profiles differ in kind: human code concentrates issues of mature codebases, AI code repetitive boilerplate; security is language-dependent, with LLMs producing more, and more severe, findings in Python and Java but fewer high-severity memory-safety findings than humans in C. Once size is controlled for, complexity metrics carry little signal, while naturalness separates authors. Finally, we release CQBench, a benchmark of 27,346 issue-prone tasks with baselines and an evaluation pipeline for quality assurance and security testing.

cs.SE↗