From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mx.treblig.org (mx.treblig.org [46.235.229.95]) (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 7BD1327472; Fri, 25 Jul 2025 01:21:05 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=46.235.229.95 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1753406467; cv=none; b=bx/wkKlMzqDPXv9alSXFUnD/mq7Vf+8fJPnmIxN8MNcXisM4idJ4aa0nkFKdetn3Yg5pWvLIrLDroPC6CdhdJuoPooMvZY94adwiXeZThQO3PG8G8kYyU72hE/kgm7+r1+J78J2Ve2ZOeCQWqTykdan0LqSVKikL91ggbvdmg2s= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1753406467; c=relaxed/simple; bh=PNQnT0E50xou3ylyJ/Sy59bI117wqWxuviW0jil5ED0=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=ZiyCew4bauZp+/yhWZibQOaxnSKzFzjHkkWUGvsO5cJIKPHBUzpKAj9PusJIoGoolDfo/62i9gDppwkY/sLBIbRaFfDOvnAlJif6cwGKbXw6gxNimv2xc3TIhrWKoIEAmjb8vHEH0kNYEBtUG5SQg+kqCfADKcIXHfUvlgwL/nM= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=treblig.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=treblig.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=treblig.org header.i=@treblig.org header.b=Neh1Lw+Q; arc=none smtp.client-ip=46.235.229.95 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=treblig.org Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=treblig.org Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=treblig.org header.i=@treblig.org header.b="Neh1Lw+Q" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=treblig.org ; s=bytemarkmx; h=Content-Type:MIME-Version:Message-ID:Subject:From:Date:From :Subject; bh=UNpaFk2/ktvgyD2Yygkf+981tz3aEAu/xR3Kivia+98=; b=Neh1Lw+QcHk9JTtQ 7TwiA6V8z5o2Kpl3kAPbUoQv/fePDknI5d1E3TM3nSA0fofuHLCNSOOw252s4kFCN1oiX+XjrCxAe bFctWdljt6+70Pg4OGuxP1N1nf1NEhViJhT1ZC/IL6X/XNxPtm3BckANzAAeh7Rt120n5WnkgJxHe L8spk4J4JWop01oA1X6AGAV+6XJYb7GDv6hsafiL+YH6X+svJ6l5GChf8SrDmSeqcQEvPS1LuGjvx HIS0Jj3ztFkXqwjbMwqbIi7aKJooANLBamOdi43xle3AINOe9rMvfzybrkCxD6P7SnsUvXiX2rYgD e4LcV6lNKZgqXLRsLA==; Received: from dg by mx.treblig.org with local (Exim 4.96) (envelope-from ) id 1uf77L-000Whh-0n; Fri, 25 Jul 2025 01:20:59 +0000 Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2025 01:20:59 +0000 From: "Dr. David Alan Gilbert" To: Sasha Levin Cc: Kees Cook , Steven Rostedt , 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=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-Chocolate: 70 percent or better cocoa solids preferably X-Operating-System: Linux/6.1.0-34-amd64 (x86_64) X-Uptime: 01:15:23 up 88 days, 9:28, 1 user, load average: 0.03, 0.01, 0.00 User-Agent: Mutt/2.2.12 (2023-09-09) * Sasha Levin (sashal@kernel.org) wrote: > 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. For me there are two separate things: a) A tool that found a problem b) A tool that wrote a piece of code. I think the cases you're referring to are all (a), where as I'm mostly thinking here about (b). In the case of (a) it's normally _one_ of those tools that found it, e.g. I see some: Found by gcc -fanalyzer but we don't have a defined way to refer to them. I also see a variety from coverity, e.g. Addresses-Coverity: xxxxx or the use of Link: to refer to a coverity failure or Addresses-Coverity-ID: xxxx ("Description of it") or a few others. It would be great to standardise some of that as well. Dave > -- > Thanks, > Sasha > -- -----Open up your eyes, open up your mind, open up your code ------- / Dr. David Alan Gilbert | Running GNU/Linux | Happy \ \ dave @ treblig.org | | In Hex / \ _________________________|_____ http://www.treblig.org |_______/