linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 10/12] sched: Add locking comments to sched

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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Message-ID: <20251008103422.030756d3@gandalf.local.home>
Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2025 10:34:22 -0400
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc: Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>, Peter Zijlstra
 <peterz@...radead.org>, tj@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
 mingo@...nel.org, vincent.guittot@...aro.org, dietmar.eggemann@....com,
 bsegall@...gle.com, mgorman@...e.de, vschneid@...hat.com,
 longman@...hat.com, hannes@...xchg.org, mkoutny@...e.com,
 void@...ifault.com, arighi@...dia.com, changwoo@...lia.com,
 cgroups@...r.kernel.org, sched-ext@...ts.linux.dev, liuwenfang@...or.com,
 tglx@...utronix.de
Subject: Re: [PATCH 10/12] sched: Add locking comments to sched_class
 methods

On Wed, 8 Oct 2025 12:06:56 +0200
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org> wrote:

> The general answer is "you better know the copyright ownership
> information of the output of the tool you use" before you do anything
> with any of these tools.  Be careful about this, because adding your
> signed-off-by to a patch like makes it your responsibility :)

And there are a lot of copyright battles going on in courts wrt AI right
now. It's best to see how that plays out too.

> 
> After that, treat it like any other tool that you use to generate a
> patch, document what you used and why/how, and you should be fine.  You
> have to do this today if you were to use any type of tool, so in that
> way, "AI" is no different, with the exception of the ownership of the
> output result (again, consult the terms of the tool used.)
> 
> Hopefully documentation updates to our process documents will reflect
> this in the near future.

Yeah, I need to help Dave on that too.

Thanks for the reminder,

-- Steve