From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from fout-a7-smtp.messagingengine.com (fout-a7-smtp.messagingengine.com [103.168.172.150]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7F3683AFB19 for ; Tue, 28 Jul 2026 22:56:35 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=103.168.172.150 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1785279399; cv=none; b=hjVqs+9hYQ4JsLZggkFhTo3raNHeP59TAEFe6q6QBl2mp62pEYColX+UsctlpT+ZBBh2DFFoVAWchdZchf5S2ctmWJZwjs0ZvU7iRGzxHmJoPwF0LYv3jmXfVrHNyR5A2diGClx59aCbWobN1LxUxqXWWid9vOKW96tz7HXIf5U= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1785279399; c=relaxed/simple; bh=nc7HdALFJqmmRLqfZYJDc+Gmo/XgwMSvXOi3WQTsETU=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=KlAeJBWIFEbQo2ELDdd1WLRuH1yKahQ3doRPCFrnnS23IPNy8jh/b7tl2AhYhp46eGxCj6NUqfd86yQqItmJxdnU4dJbFvQj3ezZfV0NqUg8yN0uxwx5QMsG6z6G7JcNeopJCo1+Oig5J7h/3lrlPQpS1tptJT+JmQ7ycCfAFuY= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=queasysnail.net; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=queasysnail.net; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=queasysnail.net header.i=@queasysnail.net header.b=rKOtkw9n; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.i=@messagingengine.com header.b=EoqFTZct; arc=none smtp.client-ip=103.168.172.150 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=queasysnail.net Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=queasysnail.net Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=queasysnail.net header.i=@queasysnail.net header.b="rKOtkw9n"; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.i=@messagingengine.com header.b="EoqFTZct" Received: from phl-compute-05.internal (phl-compute-05.internal [10.202.2.45]) by mailfout.phl.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7E8C6EC01A2; Tue, 28 Jul 2026 18:56:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: from phl-frontend-04 ([10.202.2.163]) by phl-compute-05.internal (MEProxy); Tue, 28 Jul 2026 18:56:34 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=queasysnail.net; h=cc:cc:content-type:content-type:date:date:from:from :in-reply-to:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :reply-to:subject:subject:to:to; s=fm3; t=1785279394; x= 1785365794; bh=oC1I91TKDEvENrCiidHN/0hBndbGLK4lNZmiBybzC9E=; b=r KOtkw9n4uNDAEmAHm41D4J8qe8vuJHPgVqNn0nRfH6rXjsKlJeYBBIln1Dw3gGz1 zz1Wxb7bPoJNWWVFpBK65alazVqrWb30qtz8xjSmzdcujD8IdT/dE9+faujwC24N vr3lagvh1083Qc3QuiM+sgvmbmbAY2wkSUtnEVFjkYQ1Q+PAggXcNuszbVHZ5qD1 d5yOlOoJocrEyHE3IyY9Q/sPsBEz/etraIKQO9hRxREs9yPaZwwzbpkkMha7MJFU /S0aPsrFdopllUuKxmoq1+PZjIPBAs9CawBSai0y2XCJG+AHTDtHowIoWG3Rxqqr Q5gtXgkZ6y9hqGZCyRiTw== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:cc:content-type:content-type:date:date :feedback-id:feedback-id:from:from:in-reply-to:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:reply-to:subject:subject:to :to:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm2; t= 1785279394; x=1785365794; bh=oC1I91TKDEvENrCiidHN/0hBndbGLK4lNZm iBybzC9E=; b=EoqFTZctRz7So2S5G83C3nDR6bGSg6dPys+vnH5ii2dkKQ4Tvtk QpSmlYbsVPieQcs11R5yyb43Jh2vX7muoAlNv2xMvQpX0gJDnGnHgBop4FSoGLib RKjHmNZbHnakYsKjxTt1U8szcV5DkSGwOco0KZGwBZ6P0FTWStMVPNllNTZC+Lmj KN5xAUULAwHhFJ1jtnQaeV83CfXOgPC4fgulSGnSA2OirnsvBFgU+v5i4bAZZHm9 ZKGChguiScaSQ3Wnj+8ZBwqz/xVsblBRxnmfZtBJmd69OYH+NJ0CJzMNDJZbQk6O 7VFm/P4BE/qB+h9jxCbxHcwKflVYxALBX+w== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Received: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: dmFkZTETz5PhtS5SW3P1uvVEWjqjMuaTfragFDxCRCunXy6w7DaxfzXWBL3nt181YfdBpe OGw8PQGHT4TgQ6rHqbhnnjwXpf1eZxUS/5IG0hicX4S/PooCQpqFUBSr3qRhDrFMKXL+7p dy+CoOmlyW/zxeVofgdKvH2evdHyenHwkGQ2SDyFKk8UfNpeLYt2BXq9PY4R6MGhJLiAN3 jsu0hdKiETn/WX2uDNrfVYp6Ll7xyPVEtzDvGvml2bQX13LIlna6hbqGzIv3dYrY/DRlbL Z97DkzOSL4auoKlVGuzrtFwU5KdkJVSm5ilE40WdO58PYfSd9v/NeOSSfVAm572bHSbKQm CRyLlbG06eVO7xBn00MLIHDM8zkX2Oh5UuDrx6E/Sizgu7cRjp5MsWuCbxEEIyXVhdo56K YGyWT1AAL+Z9zDaIxYL1Qcb9lWtE2wqJ4x+0Lw2WMOhhPUR7eomdT6WlyWosO9mDCB+j8l uTaZ931ujtSKQOrXB5gjiHCboH+HfChT280gpDRAkmNE7VK3NE4LccvZxX1w7wTK8b3fHZ LosCmOVKxT2e3Vw5LBreWcvWxkRqrxmGzYx1FMFp4X9jgt20ibO2be3oDky7dw4Nw77SlZ ZWbK6domVLoskkAfQLhheCBAS6EK2H4LmfBcCFn2cXGoqDpYVCkX2VZIxGiw X-ME-Proxy: Feedback-ID: i934648bf:Fastmail Received: by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Tue, 28 Jul 2026 18:56:33 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2026 00:56:31 +0200 From: Sabrina Dubroca To: Matthieu Baerts Cc: Jakub Kicinski , davem@davemloft.net, netdev@vger.kernel.org, edumazet@google.com, pabeni@redhat.com, andrew+netdev@lunn.ch, horms@kernel.org Subject: Re: [RFC] docs: netdev: additional info requirements for bug fixes Message-ID: References: <20260727204724.2787038-1-kuba@kernel.org> <20260727152517.312895f3@kernel.org> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: netdev@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: 2026-07-28, 18:17:27 +0200, Matthieu Baerts wrote: > Hi Sabrina, Jakub, > > Thank you for the patch and the review! > > On 28/07/2026 03:08, Sabrina Dubroca wrote: > > 2026-07-27, 15:25:17 -0700, Jakub Kicinski wrote: > >> On Mon, 27 Jul 2026 13:47:24 -0700 Jakub Kicinski wrote: > >>> +All bug fixes must clearly state how the issue was discovered and validated, > >>> +and how the fix was tested. This should be done in plain English, not with > >>> +special tags or annotations. > >>> + > >>> +Example statements describing discovery: > >>> + > >>> +- discovered by a non-AI static analysis tool. > >>> +- discovered by an AI code review agent. > >>> +- discovered by manual code inspection. > >>> +- triggered during code development. > >>> +- triggered in CI testing. > >>> +- observed on a machine in real use. > >>> + > >>> +If the issue was not observed in reality (e.g. it was caught by an AI tool > >>> +or manual code inspection), the next sentence should describe the > >>> +reproduction. The reproduction should state whether kernel modifications > >>> +were necessary (e.g. inserting a delay to widen the race). The commit message > >>> +must disclose if error injection or loading a special kernel module was used > >>> +to trigger the issue. The reproduction steps should be included in the commit > >>> +message if they are short (roughly 10 lines or fewer); longer reproducers can > >>> +be posted online with a link included. > >>> + > >>> +The testing statement should explain whether the fix was tested against the > >>> +reproducer and against kernel selftests. > >> > >> We should probably also add that the commit message of a fix must > >> describe the impact to the user. > >> > >> FWIW the intention is that we'd either quote this text at people > >> until they comply or even get an AI bot looking at all patches coming > >> in and deciding if commit message is good enough. With some tuning > >> LLM should be able to check that the 4 items are covered. > > > > I see what you're trying to do, but making regular contributors append > > 2 paragraphs to their commit messages (or ask their LLM to generate > > them, and also fight for an hour to get a reproducer that actually > > does something) just to check the box seems painful. Reading the git > > log with all this stuff mixed in will be worse. > > > > As someone who's probably never sent a compliant patch, and who has a > > tendency to forget new rules (especially those that are inconvenient): > > meh. I don't think the commit messages we've been writing all this > > time have been so bad. > > Are these rules mostly for new contributors using AI to generate > patches? Based on the commit message, I guess yes. Based on Jakub's reply, I would say no. > I guess regular contributors are already applying these rules, > either by using a Reported-by tag, pasting a call trace, or describing > how the bug was discovered, no? Reported-by doesn't describe how the bug was discovered, just that it was discovered by someone else than the author of the commit. It can just as well be an AI report, CI testing, someone else's manual code inspection, or a "real life" bug. The call trace could have been produced by adding delays to help trigger a race found by code inspection, or seen in real life but not reproduced by the patch author. I'm not sure code inspection vs some tool (AI or not) makes much difference, at least when the patch submitter has enough experience to check the output of the tool before writing/sending the patch. Without checking git history, I suspect there's been a bunch of fixes for issues found via code inspection or sparse that were not actually triggered/reproduced. The code was obviously wrong, it gets fixed. AI makes reproducers cheap(er), but not free (in both tokens and prompting time). "Impact to the user" is probably missing in most fixes I've sent (or severely lacking, ie nothing more than UAF/memleak). [a few examples: 52501989c762 cbada1048847 5502bc4746e8] But I could see an argument for "well we should have started mentioning testing and impact to user ages ago". > I find this important to understand how the bug was discovered, and ask > for a reproducer or another sort of proof when this is a "potential > issue found by an AI code review agent". Otherwise, that means the > reviewers have to do the validation, which will certainly take them > longer than the author to generate the patch. Sure. > I don't think regular contributors have to change their commit messages, no? If that's the case, good. But "quote this text at people until they comply" and "get an AI bot looking at all patches coming in" doesn't sound like that to me. -- Sabrina