Re: [PATCH] signal: clear JOBCTL_PENDING_MASK for caller in zap_other_threads()

[Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>]

On Thu, May 21, 2026 at 04:30:24PM +0200, Aleksandr Nogikh wrote:
> On Thu, May 21, 2026 at 4:17 PM Greg Kroah-Hartman
> <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, May 21, 2026 at 03:03:35PM +0200, Aleksandr Nogikh wrote:
> > > (+Greg)
> > >
> > > Hi Christian and Oleg,
> > >
> > > Thanks for reviewing and accepting the patch!
> > >
> > > However, it seems that we first need to clarify how these types of
> > > patches should be submitted to ensure we don't violate the Linux
> > > kernel rules regarding AI-assisted contributions.
> >
> > The documentation is very clear on this, what is missing?
> >
> > > In a discussion under another patch by syzbot [1], Greg noted that
> > > syzbot cannot be listed as the author. The official documentation [2]
> > > isn't very specific about how to handle this exact scenario.
> >
> > A "tool" can not sign off on a patch.  That's always been the case, a
> > person has to take ownership and responsibility for it from a legal and
> > technical point of view.  Again, nothing new here, been this way for a
> > very long time.
> 
> The documentation was very clear that the `Signed-off-by` tag must
> belong to a real person and these 2 patches actually did have such a
> Signed-off-by.

So, then you end up with an "authorless" signed-off-by patch, something
that makes everyone sit up and go "what just broke!".

> We've just updated syzbot to also add a `From: ` tag with the
> name/email of the person who pre-reviewed the patch and approved
> sending it to LKML.

Then they are the ones taking responsibility for a tool-generated patch.
Good luck with that, and be prepared for people to just blindly reject
them...

thanks,

greg k-h