From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp-out1.suse.de (smtp-out1.suse.de [195.135.223.130]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BCBC34DD6CC for ; Thu, 2 Jul 2026 09:51:39 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=195.135.223.130 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1782985901; cv=none; b=QDTjzxxz7FmVZbL1tGh7vCB2mFj4Bzh73tu6x9VKu6ic98/fLFMVmyu/XKn+tSVGaIDM7pE17PqcZuGPzqbVtUlWrAxmEoVkL6he4ItrgSyOBK3EA2sIjZI++GF47DIazjo2tf+GaJ8CSrXipE0Qri/cu3nNCWohbQBu0iwoIXs= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1782985901; c=relaxed/simple; bh=/tsZLXAY/qwFyLxHrELB4IEfpzk+fsxBNjJEEz2oFZ8=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:In-Reply-To:References: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=QyImkERFLBsTE0Wq7BJZJ79qSeg8KyPTc0KEdnnR+aT0KDfMHpLB1L5yOE/E9X4ZYhTaOSvcwoPgxElPJ+ZUB4FzSSUDawMtBSnEYrHtxGIv1d6r9xKyblr5a1x+yBzrPV1tQIaxkxuEMP3xnNpgvlYF3I4U7Ybtio2pT4xENCE= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=suse.de; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=suse.de; arc=none smtp.client-ip=195.135.223.130 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=suse.de Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=suse.de Received: from imap1.dmz-prg2.suse.org (imap1.dmz-prg2.suse.org [IPv6:2a07:de40:b281:104:10:150:64:97]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by smtp-out1.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7DED874108; Thu, 2 Jul 2026 09:51:37 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp-out1.suse.de; none Received: from imap1.dmz-prg2.suse.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by imap1.dmz-prg2.suse.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 294AF779AA; Thu, 2 Jul 2026 09:51:37 +0000 (UTC) Received: from dovecot-director2.suse.de ([2a07:de40:b281:106:10:150:64:167]) by imap1.dmz-prg2.suse.org with ESMTPSA id ov+uCKk0RmrIEwAAD6G6ig (envelope-from ); Thu, 02 Jul 2026 09:51:37 +0000 Date: Thu, 2 Jul 2026 19:51:34 +1000 From: David Disseldorp To: Jonathan Corbet Cc: Christian Brauner , Linus Torvalds , Jens Axboe , David Hildenbrand , Jeff Layton , Vlastimil Babka , workflows@vger.kernel.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] coding-assistants: simplify attribution Message-ID: <20260702195134.02077576.ddiss@suse.de> In-Reply-To: <87jyreofpw.fsf@trenco.lwn.net> References: <20260701-work-coding-assistants-v1-1-a20a94d1d606@kernel.org> <87jyreofpw.fsf@trenco.lwn.net> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Rspamd-Pre-Result: action=no action; module=replies; Message is reply to one we originated X-Rspamd-Pre-Result: action=no action; module=replies; Message is reply to one we originated X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.00 X-Spam-Level: X-Rspamd-Server: rspamd2.dmz-prg2.suse.org X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-4.00 / 50.00]; REPLY(-4.00)[] X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 7DED874108 X-Rspamd-Action: no action On Wed, 01 Jul 2026 10:08:11 -0600, Jonathan Corbet wrote: > > Why precisely do we require all this detailed information about what > > specific coding assistant was used? > > From my memory of the discussions: > > - If a specific LLM turns out to be in a bad position with regard to > some copyright ruling, we can identify the commits that might have > been tainted by it. > > - Similarly should an LLM prove to have an inclination toward specific > types of security issues. > > Whether either of these would ever actually prove useful is not > something I can hazard a guess for. In https://lwn.net/Articles/854645/ (An update on the UMN affair) you documented a case where an organization acted maliciously, resulting in the need to audit (and revert) numerous commits based on git authorship metadata. IMO the existing Assisted-by tags, although far from perfect, will be useful for audits when a specific LLM coding assistant is similarly found to be generating malicious output. Thanks, David