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 9A9042E371D; Thu, 24 Jul 2025 20:45:36 +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=1753389939; cv=none; b=o3VJ6Ll8fNNlsN9+TsK3CkdpLzYUP5G4KqIhOm1uEIEzZXmro75frbjC3A0WTXhtPBzcvRIgXvaf16FMcmSjVaLs4fka2InsyCQMD2xwLJD88leqYxbMxDRJbN2TIb0rdAAmfLMlwONr6FHz7ma78V2PnIqdvxHfcP4eYSi8QpY= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1753389939; c=relaxed/simple; bh=1UNUrxh+JabgrDadw88PFPT8Lr9IBivQWKHbmIolFrk=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=faCZowCfFxunKOStIodL7dgVm9D0bVBsFHmdT8JS4SrSop4GK1jNP1n5HXcesVuK2diTZC4CnfL0Yu7hVegN/E1s0ChgZtbNfFV4IZamOdmZ6AOxzx1/420dbRcd5a03/l+Z51m0W2P94aEdHzRCoBR2J5RuzoMLxnehils6WH4= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=blFm6qFx; 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="blFm6qFx" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 1D8DFC4CEED; Thu, 24 Jul 2025 20:45:36 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1753389936; bh=1UNUrxh+JabgrDadw88PFPT8Lr9IBivQWKHbmIolFrk=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=blFm6qFxbbU/JXfhg/hhAS7wPJQ0vyWJkow+GO6XN3jYDgRac7yxvAgwEJzeh/zr2 iTCBBcdMgU83QUBp+vxJhIBGp+fM/jgg12n7tJ4tNGqW54cdMcIszcJhdTbyIHPKQ3 Lx8tDjxl99pTy0erofm640EjF2C/Ap+hQKgvqGnoc1tSepXk6bpmFYK6gnbXeNXjHs M7T+PY9qXai9LAFsVpk4CqQO+TXmkBYWWVmHetgyHCmhT26KOa2cYW1imM/geOS7jU jwFlKMJNB1oY04LRlAWxlsB+L8SkI+T5MeFPhmT7WubXNIgFzjYJfwL8kyupTtkCFb lYt3DUXmm9GIw== Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2025 13:45:35 -0700 From: Kees Cook To: Konstantin Ryabitsev Cc: linux@treblig.org, 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: <202507241337.F9595E1D@keescook> References: <20250724175439.76962-1-linux@treblig.org> <20250724-alluring-fuzzy-tanuki-6e8282@lemur> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: workflows@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20250724-alluring-fuzzy-tanuki-6e8282@lemur> On Thu, Jul 24, 2025 at 03:07:17PM -0400, Konstantin Ryabitsev wrote: > On Thu, Jul 24, 2025 at 06:54:39PM +0100, linux@treblig.org wrote: > > From: "Dr. David Alan Gilbert" > > > > It seems right to require that code which is automatically > > generated is disclosed in the commit message. > > I'm not sure that's the case. There is a lot of automatically generated > content being added to the kernel all the time -- such as auto-formatted code, > documentation, and unit tests generated by non-AI tooling. We've not required > indicating this usage before, so I'm not sure it makes sense to start doing it > now. > > Furthermore, merely indicating the tool doesn't really say anything about how > it was used (e.g. what version, what prompt, what context, etc.) If anything, > this information needs to live in the cover letter of the submission. I would > suggest we investigate encouraging contributors to disclose this there, e.g.: > > | --- > | This patch series was partially generated with "InsensitiveClod o4 Hokus" > | and then heavily modified to remove the parts where it went completely off > | the deep end. > > I am also not opposed to having a more standard cover letter footer that would > allow an easier way to query this information via public-inbox services, e.g.: > > | generated-by: insensitive clod o4 hokus > > However, I don't really think this belongs in the commit trailers. I agree; I'm not sure I see a benefit in creating a regularized trailer for this. What automation/tracking is going to key off of it? It's a detail of patch creation methodology, so the commentary about how something was created is best put in the prose areas, like we already do for Coccinelle or other scripts. It's a bit buried in the Researcher Guidelines[1], but we have explicitly asked for details about tooling: When sending patches produced from research, the commit logs should contain at least the following details, so that developers have appropriate context for understanding the contribution. ... Specifically include details about any testing, static or dynamic analysis programs, and any other tools or methods used to perform the work. Maybe that needs to be repeated in SubmittingPatches? -Kees [1] https://docs.kernel.org/process/researcher-guidelines.html -- Kees Cook