linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] README: restructure with role-based documentation and guidelines

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <6a9620575d59483b105a35e8c2f53890a5d1f159.camel@perches.com>
Date: Sun, 10 Aug 2025 17:10:14 -0700
From: Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
To: Sasha Levin <sashal@...nel.org>
Cc: corbet@....net, josh@...htriplett.org, kees@...nel.org, 
	konstantin@...uxfoundation.org, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, 
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, rostedt@...dmis.org, workflows@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] README: restructure with role-based
 documentation and guidelines

On Sun, 2025-08-10 at 12:46 -0400, Sasha Levin wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 10, 2025 at 08:44:58AM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> > On Sat, 2025-08-09 at 19:40 -0400, Sasha Levin wrote:
> > > Reorganize README to provide targeted documentation paths for different
> > > user roles including developers, researchers, security experts,
> > > maintainers, and AI coding assistants. Add quick start section and
> > > essential docs links.
> > > 
> > > Include proper attribution requirements for AI-assisted contributions
> > > using Assisted-by tags with agent details and tools used.
> > 
> > Nicely done.
> 
> Thanks Joe!
> 
> > Perhaps the 'Assisted-by:' tag should not be limited to AI
> > assistance but could also be used when accepted notes were
> > given on any revised patch submission.
> 
> The suggestions from the previous patches around expanding this to be a
> list of tools rather than just "AI" made sense, this is the example I
> gave in the cover letter:
> 
> 	Assisted-by: Claude-claude-3-opus-20240229 checkpatch
> 
> I find something like that useful because it tells me from the get-go
> that the submitter ran checkpatch on it (without having to spend a line
> in the commit message saying the same).
> 
> I'm not sure about mixing human feedback into this, it might be
> difficult to interpert it later.
> 
> It might work more naturally as an extension of Reviewed-by?
> 
> 	Reviewed-by: Developer A <a@b.c> # Improved the XYZ algorithm

Maybe.  Dunno.

Sometimes I just give style suggestions or notes for things I'm
cc'd on but I don't really review it as a "Reviewed-by:" tag
seems to imply a more formal process.

> > Oh, and maybe a checkpatch update like this?
[]
> > diff --git a/scripts/checkpatch.pl b/scripts/checkpatch.pl
[]
> > @@ -641,6 +641,7 @@ our $signature_tags = qr{(?xi:
> > 	Reviewed-by:|
> > 	Reported-by:|
> > 	Suggested-by:|
> > +	Assisted-by:|
> > 	To:|
> > 	Cc:
> > )};
> 
> Yup, makes sense! I'll start including checkpatch updates going forward.

If the AI/coding 'Assisted-by:' tag doesn't have an email address,
then checkpatch is going to complain anyway.

Something in checkpatch's

	# Check signature styles

block starting around line 3040 or so will also need updating.