linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] [v3] 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: <aWCVYLuUFZrsbfd-@stanley.mountain>
Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2026 08:42:56 +0300
From: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...aro.org>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc: Dave Hansen <dave@...1.net>,
	Lorenzo Stoakes <lorenzo.stoakes@...cle.com>,
	Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
	James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senpartnership.com>,
	Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>,
	Kees Cook <kees@...nel.org>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
	Miguel Ojeda <ojeda@...nel.org>,
	Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@...nel.org>, SeongJae Park <sj@...nel.org>,
	Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
	NeilBrown <neilb@...mail.net>, Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>,
	Sasha Levin <sashal@...nel.org>, Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
	Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>, workflows@...r.kernel.org,
	ksummit@...ts.linux.dev
Subject: Re: [PATCH] [v3] Documentation: Provide guidelines for
 tool-generated content

On Thu, Jan 08, 2026 at 03:14:37PM -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Thu, 8 Jan 2026 11:50:29 -0800
> Dave Hansen <dave@...1.net> wrote:
> 
> > On 1/8/26 11:23, Lorenzo Stoakes wrote:
> > > I'm also not sure why we're losing the scrutiny part?
> > > 
> > > Something like:
> > > 
> > > +If tools permit you to generate series entirely automatically, expect
> > > +additional scrutiny.  
> > 
> > The reason I resisted integrating this is it tries to draw too specific
> > a line in the sand. Someone could rightfully read that and say they
> > don't expect additional scrutiny because the entire series was not
> > automatically generated.
> > 
> > What I want to say is: the more automation your tool provides, the more
> > scrutiny you get. Maybe:
> > 
> > 	Expect increasing amounts of maintainer scrutiny on
> > 	contributions that were increasingly generated by tooling.
> 
> Honestly that just sounds "grumpy" to me ;-)
> 
> How about something like:
> 
> 	All tooling is prone to make mistakes that differ from mistakes
> 	generated by humans. A maintainer may push back harder on
> 	submissions that were entirely or partially generated by tooling
> 	and expect the submitter to demonstrate that even the generated
> 	code was verified to be accurate.
> 
> -- Steve

It's better to have a grumpy document, instead of grumpy emails.  We
need it to sound grumpy and it needs to be the first paragraph.

AI Slop:  AI can generate a ton of patches automatically which creates a
burden on the upstream maintainers.  The maintainers need to review
every line of every patch and they expect the submitters to demonstrate
that even the generated code was verified to be accurate.  If you are
unsure of whether a patch is appropriate then do not send it.  NO AI
SLOP!

Of course, sensible people don't need to be told this stuff, but there
are well intentioned people who need it explained.

regards,
dan carpenter