summaryrefslogtreecommitdiffstats
path: root/Documentation/process/generated-content.rst
diff options
context:
space:
mode:
authorShivank Garg <shivankg@amd.com>2026-08-22 19:22:05 +0000
committerVinod Koul <vkoul@kernel.org>2026-09-09 17:51:44 +0530
commite873c74132f0c5f1452816cd9bb26208f0bba1e1 (patch)
treecc1ce1567f5b982359331863ebd9da38741f8d2e /Documentation/process/generated-content.rst
downloadlinux-stable-e873c74132f0c5f1452816cd9bb26208f0bba1e1.tar.gz
linux-stable-e873c74132f0c5f1452816cd9bb26208f0bba1e1.zip
dmaengine: fix use-after-free in dma_chan_put() and dma_release_channel()grafted
When dma_device_put() drops the last reference on chan->device->ref, dma_device_release() runs and may free the dma_device along with its channels. dma_chan_put() then still reads chan->device->owner via dma_chan_to_owner() for the trailing module_put(). KASAN catches it: slab-use-after-free in dma_chan_put+0x3e6/0x4c0 Read of size 8 by task insmod/6319 Freed by task 6319: kfree+0x225/0x470 dma_chan_put+0x395/0x4c0 dmaengine_put+0xf8/0x160 Cache the module owner in dma_chan_put() before the put so the trailing module_put() does not need chan->device. Fixes: 8ad342a86359 ("dmaengine: Add reference counting to dma_device struct") Suggested-by: Sashiko <sashiko-bot@kernel.org> Link: https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/20260518-dmaengine-kref-fix-v1-1-4d6125048fb7@amd.com Reviewed-by: Frank Li <Frank.Li@nxp.com> Reviewed-by: Logan Gunthorpe <logang@deltatee.com> Signed-off-by: Shivank Garg <shivankg@amd.com> Link: https://patch.msgid.link/20260822-dmaengine-kref-fix-v5-3-d4a4ee47d927@amd.com Signed-off-by: Vinod Koul <vkoul@kernel.org>
Diffstat (limited to 'Documentation/process/generated-content.rst')
-rw-r--r--Documentation/process/generated-content.rst116
1 files changed, 116 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/Documentation/process/generated-content.rst b/Documentation/process/generated-content.rst
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..aad2caad9
--- /dev/null
+++ b/Documentation/process/generated-content.rst
@@ -0,0 +1,116 @@
+============================================
+Kernel Guidelines for Tool-Generated Content
+============================================
+
+Purpose
+=======
+
+Kernel contributors have been using tooling to generate contributions
+for a long time. These tools can increase the volume of contributions.
+At the same time, reviewer and maintainer bandwidth is a scarce
+resource. Understanding which portions of a contribution come from
+humans versus tools is helpful to maintain those resources and keep
+kernel development healthy.
+
+The goal here is to clarify community expectations around tools. This
+lets everyone become more productive while also maintaining high
+degrees of trust between submitters and reviewers.
+
+Out of Scope
+============
+
+These guidelines do not apply to tools that make trivial tweaks to
+preexisting content. Nor do they pertain to tooling that helps with
+menial tasks. Some examples:
+
+ - Spelling and grammar fix ups, like rephrasing to imperative voice
+ - Typing aids like identifier completion, common boilerplate or
+ trivial pattern completion
+ - Purely mechanical transformations like variable renaming
+ - Reformatting, like running Lindent, ``clang-format`` or
+ ``rust-fmt``
+
+Even whenever your tool use is out of scope, you should still always
+consider if it would help reviewing your contribution if the reviewer
+knows about the tool that you used.
+
+In Scope
+========
+
+These guidelines apply when a meaningful amount of content in a kernel
+contribution was not written by a person in the Signed-off-by chain,
+but was instead created by a tool.
+
+Detection of a problem and testing the fix for it is also part of the
+development process; if a tool was used to find a problem addressed by
+a change, that should be noted in the changelog. This not only gives
+credit where it is due, it also helps fellow developers find out about
+these tools.
+
+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 coding
+ assistant but cleaned up by hand.
+ - The changelog was generated by handing the patch to a generative AI
+ tool and asking it to write the changelog.
+ - The changelog was translated from another language.
+
+If in doubt, choose transparency and assume these guidelines apply to
+your contribution.
+
+Guidelines
+==========
+
+First, read the Developer's Certificate of Origin:
+Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst. Its rules are simple
+and have been in place for a long time. They have covered many
+tool-generated contributions. Ensure that you understand your entire
+submission and are prepared to respond to review comments.
+
+Second, when making a contribution, be transparent about the origin of
+content in cover letters and changelogs. You can be more transparent
+by adding information like this:
+
+ - What tools were used?
+ - The input to the tools you used, like the Coccinelle source script.
+ - If code was largely generated from a single or short set of
+ prompts, include those prompts. For longer sessions, include a
+ summary of the prompts and the nature of resulting assistance.
+ - Which portions of the content were affected by that tool?
+ - How is the submission tested and what tools were used to test the
+ fix?
+
+As with all contributions, individual maintainers have discretion to
+choose how they handle the contribution. For example, they might:
+
+ - Treat it just like any other contribution.
+ - Reject it outright.
+ - Treat the contribution specially, for example, asking for extra
+ testing, reviewing with extra scrutiny, or reviewing at a lower
+ priority than human-generated content.
+ - Ask for some other special steps, like asking the contributor to
+ elaborate on how the tool or model was trained.
+ - Ask the submitter to explain in more detail about the contribution
+ so that the maintainer can be assured that the submitter fully
+ understands how the code works.
+ - Suggest a better prompt instead of suggesting specific code changes.
+
+If tools permit you to generate a contribution automatically, expect
+additional scrutiny in proportion to how much of it was generated.
+
+As with the output of any tooling, the result may be incorrect or
+inappropriate. You are expected to understand and to be able to defend
+everything you submit. If you are unable to do so, then do not submit
+the resulting changes.
+
+If you do so anyway, maintainers are entitled to reject your series
+without detailed review.
+
+References
+==========
+
+For specific guidelines on AI coding assistants, see:
+
+* Documentation/process/coding-assistants.rst