From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-1.web.codeaurora.org [10.30.226.201]) (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 631A318BBAE; Fri, 25 Jul 2025 01:06:26 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1753405586; cv=none; b=jmvUzVmjpumVDgdM/6TEYBfHG05OmDZqrMTFbzTvYQoqmUC5nYDmd8/fuwByCx+81mW4o6mQnwhZQgPIPg+TM44PqQ8uovGdTZHm1cJJfuP2FPiglwOZptFjfGT43LZw5Hly1XIsERY4foxtD+ZYmD2ZIur9XaWz1WfzUqxLvs0= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1753405586; c=relaxed/simple; bh=XRod0fl1x5YkTgo5sRuAN3KnxoLUBTn38asgNRfFLg8=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=cEAU4oOj/kFf5iOHWBGj8vBlt7lVFGNyt6a/bva+owPad1xiU4VFs7ZJNkAb/OYHRtfaxRv+hNiZyAeE+NTm6bubmvVUxcIEFZdvf5t+ydHwsFum8qi8QbhoP+cuXRy0FzzAYEVw1P6WuQ7UTzXcX8cmogWm1GTtBd663kTm+G8= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=l9PMn74V; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="l9PMn74V" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 7B63AC4CEED; Fri, 25 Jul 2025 01:06:25 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1753405585; bh=XRod0fl1x5YkTgo5sRuAN3KnxoLUBTn38asgNRfFLg8=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=l9PMn74VGXda+ufmUKF1tASCMGoOASBy2/J9Wbj2ntkUHcAjkwFIfmC7NxjSo5fcB Vhe2yZJvVczzXpiU86tyq8s7R1McsbeBeo7MBQwGtBwrHtsWA/85obea/sgqMqVv73 VUxpGDWULHfpMiN2Mhs/pdGc8bt2Cit/y+jSIycpACkJ1JmUl+6c268SA2ILUS6z52 NG+HC0i0O+U8L1ZTge0gqR9W34ENfsKk61SRDUwxhSu0cm/5XqjA32D2f3mBT94+iM HZJP2QgOaL48OGjM7VWo/D2NzuaB68Si4ECuSalFxivhgXUxg3jMPFt9XxQe6NUVva EfpMzgIO2pRPQ== Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2025 21:06:23 -0400 From: Sasha Levin To: Kees Cook Cc: Steven Rostedt , "Dr. David Alan Gilbert" , Konstantin Ryabitsev , corbet@lwn.net, workflows@vger.kernel.org, josh@joshtriplett.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] docs: submitting-patches: (AI?) Tool disclosure tag Message-ID: References: <20250724175439.76962-1-linux@treblig.org> <20250724-alluring-fuzzy-tanuki-6e8282@lemur> <202507241337.F9595E1D@keescook> <202507241418.34AFD28C@keescook> <20250724194556.105803db@gandalf.local.home> <202507241651.5E9C803C70@keescook> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-doc@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <202507241651.5E9C803C70@keescook> On Thu, Jul 24, 2025 at 04:54:11PM -0700, Kees Cook wrote: >On Thu, Jul 24, 2025 at 07:45:56PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote: >> My thought is to treat AI as another developer. If a developer helps you >> like the AI is helping you, would you give that developer credit for that >> work? If so, then you should also give credit to the tooling that's helping >> you. >> >> I suggested adding a new tag to note any tool that has done non-trivial >> work to produce the patch where you give it credit if it has helped you as >> much as another developer that you would give credit to. > >We've got tags to choose from already in that case: > >Suggested-by: LLM > >or > >Co-developed-by: LLM >Signed-off-by: LLM > >The latter seems ... not good, as it implies DCO SoB from a thing that >can't and hasn't acknowledged the DCO. In my mind, "any tool" would also be something like gcc giving you a "non-trivial" error (think something like a buffer overflow warning that could have been a security issue). In that case, should we encode the entire toolchain used for developing a patch? Maybe... Some sort of semi-standardized shorthand notation of the tooling used to develop a patch could be interesting not just for plain disclosure, but also to be able to trace back issues with patches ("oh! the author didn't see a warning because they use gcc 13 while the warning was added in gcc 14!"). Signed-off-by: John Doe # gcc:14.1;ccache:1.2;sparse:4.7;claude-code:0.5 This way some of it could be automated via git hooks and we can recommend a relevant string to add with checkpatch. -- Thanks, Sasha