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 EA981311C2E for ; Mon, 11 Aug 2025 21:46:11 +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=1754948772; cv=none; b=HXzmKfQlOAMLLUt7nXbaWasNtKURZSZgY2Vq0LoMl6nO4VieFHDNgb8CHR4X5K3kOG2zBUCw/cLCU1a0QzQPR+L+/mJrEkN/ZUNhWbnfdciqD0DsZeLhc50+YkdbxkBX2wWGVHzhIDz6J5z5wgCEZPLIVoK19i09MlZk+PgqAlQ= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1754948772; c=relaxed/simple; bh=UqtcwJ4Tz8uMRswv+ApTRb0ofReVvAx/Ur29Lo0uVj8=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=LrB7q3lNwt7ulPaEyCCcS1f1kvi4O9BrRiBY9Ht2H1amfek/dLqGdSgvaC/wbKbUnrvlHvXwDEKIij0YWrDf5bYOQQQ2GE525W4wSQVGgl/ilJAAJ6qXJizZXNYBy+ZOWvbGIlqL1qH9N2jIDz1HviUdo5ge21aK8a4lb+TKswA= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=EpYnjFrU; 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="EpYnjFrU" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 7C737C4CEED; Mon, 11 Aug 2025 21:46:11 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1754948771; bh=UqtcwJ4Tz8uMRswv+ApTRb0ofReVvAx/Ur29Lo0uVj8=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Reply-To:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=EpYnjFrUgieE7enZ6wMQrd28SsE9dTIcqg6zIu6RV24/E7LAszs2nqdp/TEE5dBhv oKwclUPaEHB1Zt+jrPCk3wjRcK5jeJVaadEu0GIRWYgEmvcI+LXiObsFmpcfx3l0yO uZJonJChiVPYDqlWbh6yYP4p8dPabHZhFPXO61b6TyC1XG/6UfmpUAhlNj6MwZ9ek/ vBV4IUraEtg0Icks72e1cocRaCsDGcjC57vI5P3d2LmoWlkMTkQl6x+gu6jNYohw8U QI7MX9pnwHvnxdCgVH9Weh5E0ILmNfPRa9f0GUnWW8tIUqNf287Kt1slgvGtK0faap AHoZW0apOmSHQ== Received: by paulmck-ThinkPad-P17-Gen-1.home (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 1E434CE0965; Mon, 11 Aug 2025 14:46:11 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2025 14:46:11 -0700 From: "Paul E. McKenney" To: Krzysztof Kozlowski Cc: Sasha Levin , Jiri Kosina , ksummit@lists.linux.dev Subject: Re: [MAINTAINERS SUMMIT] Annotating patches containing AI-assisted code Message-ID: Reply-To: paulmck@kernel.org References: <1npn33nq-713r-r502-p5op-q627pn5555oo@fhfr.pbz> <12ded49d-daa4-4199-927e-ce844f4cfe67@kernel.org> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: ksummit@lists.linux.dev List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <12ded49d-daa4-4199-927e-ce844f4cfe67@kernel.org> On Fri, Aug 08, 2025 at 10:31:27AM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > On 05/08/2025 19:50, Sasha Levin wrote: > > On Tue, Aug 05, 2025 at 05:38:36PM +0200, Jiri Kosina wrote: > >> This proposal is pretty much followup/spinoff of the discussion currently > >> happening on LKML in one of the sub-threads of [1]. > >> > >> This is not really about legal aspects of AI-generated code and patches, I > >> believe that'd be handled well handled well by LF, DCO, etc. > >> > >> My concern here is more "human to human", as in "if I need to talk to a > >> human that actually does understand the patch deeply enough, in context, > >> etc .. who is that?" > >> > >> I believe we need to at least settle on (and document) the way how to > >> express in patch (meta)data: > >> > >> - this patch has been assisted by LLM $X > >> - the human understanding the generated code is $Y > >> > >> We might just implicitly assume this to be the first person in the S-O-B > >> chain (which I personally don't think works for all scenarios, you can > >> have multiple people working on it, etc), but even in such case I believe > >> this needs to be clearly documented. > > > > The above isn't really an AI problem though. > > > > We already have folks sending "checkpatch fixes" which only make code > > less readable or "syzbot fixes" that shut up the warnings but are > > completely bogus otherwise. > > > > Sure, folks sending "AI fixes" could (will?) be a growing problem, but > > tackling just the AI side of it is addressing one of the symptoms, not > > the underlying issue. > > I think there is a important difference in process and in result between > using existing tools, like coccinelle, sparse or even checkpatch, and > AI-assisted coding. > > For the first you still need to write actual code and since you are > writing it, most likely you will compile it. Even if people fix the > warnings, not the problems, they still at least write the code and thus > this filters at least people who never wrote C. > > With AI you do not have to even write it. It will hallucinate, create > some sort of C code and you just send it. No need to compile it even! Completely agreed, and furthermore, depending on how that AI was trained, those using that AI's output might have some difficulty meeting the requirements of the second portion of clause (a) of Developer's Certificate of Origin (DCO) 1.1: "I have the right to submit it under the open source license indicated in the file". Thanx, Paul