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 0FD99BA3D; Fri, 25 Jul 2025 00:55:38 +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=1753404941; cv=none; b=FZAbRtChTuN36Nyht6ZFbC9Vr1PDQN1zoRG12QWM5qTP1WSNhHfMHDarRzW55s+hBzNp8/iCPSxOal+ZVrNnAu8Pqw9GrqMDnAZpAIG9tk2YbIoB4VIKJfdJbaLF8AEqw3E1zj6cNR7sGy0myFA8XD9uFaoRSk7AvDBnrbuYP5M= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1753404941; c=relaxed/simple; bh=KvxN5DHjZGSXEwli5Su3Qm7vJiM8XvRrYqw6i3BZUkQ=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=YDJiPLaAfHLD6/K0OTjawtb3wYw6cO8jnvzCB2uX9iQuIY5QE+G9c2M+cbnUZM22Mp5LsJ8NGyoQPORyxpgNrgjaCqjBDrwEhEA2Mp4pqr747mjIhWBYH+g10AuCvd/e9nLga6Mp6YKlyRRYtCeW4TRcz4+Tq2T/P0vjd5wv0Pk= 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=T9iFiWIa; 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="T9iFiWIa" 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=StlREuo1scS0BfmCy3StaAeIUyCF5tPTsycVVaKcV94=; b=T9iFiWIagMi1C/Et gM5OuOyS+mMLiTMpLXVy/Qq4acvvgpRuwIiZCX6tEUSHgEeW2JA7f9gIJhOXXYgct4xOPzOhG9d7r FIfobPC6NrE5FHXJLlY4YbnKbQrO94NmDu+HqdjC3oTiOtJNgjuLmsvWczVoY62ziePsTOWjxVOOH UWNUsdlAJDg1Gt0clsjjx/Fpav8+UWOTRQI43YD4Zc76/CmG2mY0jKYc3ALgNCPgkff60OktqBMfH OeSYxHIkpAjRV+DlouvgOtU2CN9CW6soAJ0yaXjGBI8STCqTP5DSXLrXZGkVayFf+jlYPjltBhBxQ NeOQ9dgdYkzISq5rLw==; Received: from dg by mx.treblig.org with local (Exim 4.96) (envelope-from ) id 1uf6ie-000WVV-0z; Fri, 25 Jul 2025 00:55:28 +0000 Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2025 00:55:28 +0000 From: "Dr. David Alan Gilbert" To: Kees Cook Cc: 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: workflows@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: <202507241651.5E9C803C70@keescook> X-Chocolate: 70 percent or better cocoa solids preferably X-Operating-System: Linux/6.1.0-34-amd64 (x86_64) X-Uptime: 00:53:00 up 88 days, 9:06, 1 user, load average: 0.00, 0.00, 0.00 User-Agent: Mutt/2.2.12 (2023-09-09) * Kees Cook (kees@kernel.org) 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 For me, 'Suggested-by:' seems fine for where an LLM has responded to a 'suggest improvements to this function'. > 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. Yeh, the Co-developed-by: isn't terrible, but in both that and the Suggested-by: is there a standard for how you would refer to the tool? IMHO it should not have an email address there otherwise it'll confuse tools into cc'ing them. Dave > > -- > Kees Cook > -- -----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 |_______/