linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] [v2] Documentation: Provide guidelines for tool-generated content

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: <690e8aaae5f47_74f591005b@dwillia2-mobl4.notmuch>
Date: Fri, 7 Nov 2025 16:11:22 -0800
From: <dan.j.williams@...el.com>
To: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
CC: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>, Steven Rostedt
	<rostedt@...dmis.org>, Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>, Theodore Ts'o
	<tytso@....edu>, Sasha Levin <sashal@...nel.org>, Jonathan Corbet
	<corbet@....net>, Kees Cook <kees@...nel.org>, Greg Kroah-Hartman
	<gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>, Miguel Ojeda <ojeda@...nel.org>, Shuah Khan
	<shuah@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] [v2] Documentation: Provide guidelines for tool-generated
 content

Dave Hansen wrote:
> In the last few years, the capabilities of coding tools have exploded.
> As those capabilities have expanded, contributors and maintainers have
> more and more questions about how and when to apply those
> capabilities.
> 
> The shiny new AI tools (chatbots, coding assistants and more) are
> impressive.  Add new Documentation to guide contributors on how to
> best use kernel development tools, new and old.
> 
> Note, though, there are fundamentally no new or unique rules in this
> new document. It clarifies expectations that the kernel community has
> had for many years. For example, researchers are already asked to
> disclose the tools they use to find issues in
> Documentation/process/researcher-guidelines.rst. This new document
> just reiterates existing best practices for development tooling.
> 
> In short: Please show your work and make sure your contribution is
> easy to review.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>
> Cc: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
> Cc: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>
> Cc: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>
> Cc: Sasha Levin <sashal@...nel.org>
> Cc: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>
> Cc: Kees Cook <kees@...nel.org>
> Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
> Cc: Miguel Ojeda <ojeda@...nel.org>
> Cc: Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>

Looks good Dave, if you are spinning one more time a couple trivial
comments below that you are free to ignore.

Reviewed-by: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>

[..]
> +Purpose
> +=======
> +
> +Kernel contributors have been using tooling to generate contributions
> +for a long time. These tools are constantly becoming more capable and
> +undoubtedly improve developer productivity. At the same time, reviewer
> +and maintainer bandwidth is a very scarce resource. Understanding

s/very//

[..]
> +Some examples:
> + - Any tool-suggested fix such as ``checkpatch.pl --fix``
> + - Coccinelle scripts
> + - A chatbot generated a new function in your patch to sort list entries.
> + - A .c file in the patch was originally generated by a LLM but cleaned

s/a LLM/an LLM/, spell out "LLM", or maybe "coding assistant"?

Otherwise, I assume the three different terms "chatbot", "LLM", and "generative AI"
were deliberate to try to capture a spectrum of tools?