# Code provenance

## Certifying patch submissions

The QEMU community mandates all contributors to certify provenance of patch submissions they make to the project. To put it another way, contributors must indicate that they are legally permitted to contribute to the project.

Certification is achieved with a low overhead by adding a single line to the bottom of every git commit:

    Signed-off-by: YOUR NAME <YOUR@EMAIL>

The addition of this line asserts that the author of the patch is contributing in accordance with the clauses specified in the Developer’s Certificate of Origin:

> Developer’s Certificate of Origin 1.1

> By making a contribution to this project, I certify that:

> 1. The contribution was created in whole or in part by me and I have the right to submit it under the open source license indicated in the file; or

> 2. The contribution is based upon previous work that, to the best of my knowledge, is covered under an appropriate open source license and I have the right under that license to submit that work with modifications, whether created in whole or in part by me, under the same open source license (unless I am permitted to submit under a different license), as indicated in the file; or

> 3. The contribution was provided directly to me by some other person who certified (a), (b) or (c) and I have not modified it.

> 4. I understand and agree that this project and the contribution are public and that a record of the contribution (including all personal information I submit with it, including my sign-off) is maintained indefinitely and may be redistributed consistent with this project or the open source license(s) involved.

The name used with “Signed-off-by” does not need to be your legal name, nor birth name, nor appear on any government ID. It is the identity you choose to be known by in the community, but should not be anonymous, nor misrepresent whom you are.

It is generally expected that the name and email addresses used in one of the `Signed-off-by` lines, matches that of the git commit `Author` field. It’s okay if you subscribe or contribute to the list via more than one address, but using multiple addresses in one commit just confuses things.

If the person sending the mail is not one of the patch authors, they are nonetheless expected to add their own `Signed-off-by` to comply with the DCO clause (c).

## Multiple authorship

It is not uncommon for a patch to have contributions from multiple authors. In this scenario, git commits will usually be expected to have a `Signed-off-by` line for each contributor involved in creation of the patch. Some edge cases:

> - The non-primary author’s contributions were so trivial that they can be considered not subject to copyright. In this case the secondary authors need not include a `Signed-off-by`.

>   This case most commonly applies where QEMU reviewers give short snippets of code as suggested fixes to a patch. The reviewers don’t need to have their own `Signed-off-by` added unless their code suggestion was unusually large, but it is common to add `Suggested-by` as a credit for non-trivial code.

> - Both contributors work for the same employer and the employer requires copyright assignment.

>   It can be said that in this case a `Signed-off-by` is indicating that the person has permission to contribute from their employer who is the copyright holder. It is nonetheless still preferable to include a `Signed-off-by` for each contributor, as in some countries employees are not able to assign copyright to their employer, and it also covers any time invested outside working hours.

When multiple `Signed-off-by` tags are present, they should be strictly kept in order of authorship, from oldest to newest.

## Other commit tags

While the `Signed-off-by` tag is mandatory, there are a number of other tags that are commonly used during QEMU development:

> - ``Reviewed-by``: when a QEMU community member reviews a patch on the mailing list, if they consider the patch acceptable, they should send an email reply containing a `Reviewed-by` tag. Subsystem maintainers who review a patch should add this even if they are also adding their `Signed-off-by` to the same commit.

> - ``Acked-by``: when a QEMU subsystem maintainer approves a patch that touches their subsystem, but intends to allow a different maintainer to queue it and send a pull request, they would send a mail containing a `Acked-by` tag. Where a patch touches multiple subsystems, `Acked-by` only implies review of the maintainers’ own areas of responsibility. If a maintainer wants to indicate they have done a full review they should use a `Reviewed-by` tag.

> - ``Tested-by``: when a QEMU community member has functionally tested the behaviour of the patch in some manner, they should send an email reply containing a `Tested-by` tag.

> - ``Reported-by``: when a QEMU community member reports a problem via the mailing list, or some other informal channel that is not the issue tracker, it is good practice to credit them by including a `Reported-by` tag on any patch fixing the issue. When the problem is reported via the GitLab issue tracker, however, it is sufficient to just include a link to the issue.

> - ``Suggested-by``: when a reviewer or other 3rd party makes non-trivial suggestions for how to change a patch, it is good practice to credit them by including a `Suggested-by` tag.

## Subsystem maintainer requirements

When a subsystem maintainer accepts a patch from a contributor, in addition to the normal code review points, they are expected to validate the presence of suitable `Signed-off-by` tags.

At the time they queue the patch in their subsystem tree, the maintainer must also then add their own `Signed-off-by` to indicate that they have done the aforementioned validation. This is in addition to any of their own `Reviewed-by` tags the subsystem maintainer may wish to include.

When the maintainer modifies the patch after pulling into their tree, they should record their contribution. This is typically done via a note in the commit message, just prior to the maintainer’s `Signed-off-by`:

    Signed-off-by: Cory Contributor <cory.contributor@example.com>
    [Comment rephrased for clarity]
    Signed-off-by: Mary Maintainer <mary.maintainer@mycorp.test>

## Tools for adding `Signed-off-by`

There are a variety of ways tools can support adding `Signed-off-by` tags for patches, avoiding the need for contributors to manually type in this repetitive text each time.

### git commands

When creating, or amending, a commit the `-s` flag to `git commit` will append a suitable line matching the configured git author details.

If preparing patches using the `git format-patch` tool, the `-s` flag can be used to append a suitable line in the emails it creates, without modifying the local commits. Alternatively to modify all the local commits on a branch:

    git rebase master -x 'git commit --amend --no-edit -s'

### emacs

In the file `$HOME/.emacs.d/abbrev_defs` add:

    (define-abbrev-table 'global-abbrev-table
      '(
        ("8rev" "Reviewed-by: YOUR NAME <your@email.addr>" nil 1)
        ("8ack" "Acked-by: YOUR NAME <your@email.addr>" nil 1)
        ("8test" "Tested-by: YOUR NAME <your@email.addr>" nil 1)
        ("8sob" "Signed-off-by: YOUR NAME <your@email.addr>" nil 1)
       ))

with this change, if you type (for example) `8rev` followed by `<space>` or `<enter>` it will expand to the whole phrase.

### vim

In the file `$HOME/.vimrc` add:

    iabbrev 8rev Reviewed-by: YOUR NAME <your@email.addr>
    iabbrev 8ack Acked-by: YOUR NAME <your@email.addr>
    iabbrev 8test Tested-by: YOUR NAME <your@email.addr>
    iabbrev 8sob Signed-off-by: YOUR NAME <your@email.addr>

with this change, if you type (for example) `8rev` followed by `<space>` or `<enter>` it will expand to the whole phrase.

## Re-starting abandoned work

For a variety of reasons there are some patches that get submitted to QEMU but never merged. An unrelated contributor may decide (months or years later) to continue working from the abandoned patch and re-submit it with extra changes.

The general principles when picking up abandoned work are:

> - Continue to credit the original author for their work, by maintaining their original `Signed-off-by`

> - Indicate where the original patch was obtained from (mailing list, bug tracker, author’s git repo, etc) when sending it for review

> - Acknowledge the extra work of the new contributor by including their `Signed-off-by` in the patch in addition to the orignal author’s

> - Indicate who is responsible for what parts of the patch. This is typically done via a note in the commit message, just prior to the new contributor’s `Signed-off-by`:

>       Signed-off-by: Some Person <some.person@example.com>
>       [Rebased and added support for 'foo']
>       Signed-off-by: New Person <new.person@mycorp.test>

In complicated cases, or if otherwise unsure, ask for advice on the project mailing list.

It is also recommended to attempt to contact the original author to let them know you are interested in taking over their work, in case they still intended to return to the work, or had any suggestions about the best way to continue.

## Inclusion of generated files

Files in patches contributed to QEMU are generally expected to be provided only in the preferred format for making modifications. The implication of this is that the output of code generators or compilers is usually not appropriate to contribute to QEMU.

For reasons of practicality there are some exceptions to this rule, where generated code is permitted, provided it is also accompanied by the corresponding preferred source format. This is done where it is impractical to expect those building QEMU to run the code generation or compilation process. A non-exhaustive list of examples is:

> - Images: where an bitmap image is created from a vector file it is common to include the rendered bitmaps at desired resolution(s), since subtle changes in the rasterization process / tools may affect quality. The original vector file is expected to accompany any generated bitmaps.

> - Firmware: QEMU includes pre-compiled binary ROMs for a variety of guest firmwares. When such binary ROMs are contributed, the corresponding source must also be provided, either directly, or through a git submodule link.

> - Dockerfiles: the majority of the dockerfiles are automatically generated from a canonical list of build dependencies maintained in tree, together with the libvirt-ci git submodule link. The generated dockerfiles are included in tree because it is desirable to be able to directly build container images from a clean git checkout.

> - eBPF: QEMU includes some generated eBPF machine code, since the required eBPF compilation tools are not broadly available on all targetted OS distributions. The corresponding eBPF C code for the binary is also provided. This is a time-limited exception until the eBPF toolchain is sufficiently broadly available in distros.

In all cases above, the existence of generated files must be acknowledged and justified in the commit that introduces them.

Tools which perform changes to existing code with deterministic algorithmic manipulation, driven by user specified inputs, are not generally considered to be “generators”.

For instance, using Coccinelle to convert code from one pattern to another pattern, or fixing documentation typos with a spell checker, or transforming code using sed / awk / etc, are not considered to be acts of code generation. Where an automated manipulation is performed on code, however, this should be declared in the commit message.

At times contributors may use or create scripts/tools to generate an initial boilerplate code template which is then filled in to produce the final patch. The output of such a tool would still be considered the “preferred format”, since it is intended to be a foundation for further human authored changes. Such tools are acceptable to use, provided there is clearly defined copyright and licensing for their output. Note in particular the caveats applying to AI content generators below.

## Use of AI content generators

TL;DR:

> Current QEMU project policy is to DECLINE any contributions which are believed to include or derive from AI generated content. This includes ChatGPT, Claude, Copilot, Llama and similar tools.

The increasing prevalence of AI-assisted software development results in a number of difficult legal questions and risks for software projects, including QEMU. Of particular concern is content generated by Large Language Models (LLMs).

The QEMU community requires that contributors certify their patch submissions are made in accordance with the rules of the Developer's Certificate of Origin (DCO).

To satisfy the DCO, the patch contributor has to fully understand the copyright and license status of content they are contributing to QEMU. With AI content generators, the copyright and license status of the output is ill-defined with no generally accepted, settled legal foundation.

Where the training material is known, it is common for it to include large volumes of material under restrictive licensing/copyright terms. Even where the training material is all known to be under open source licenses, it is likely to be under a variety of terms, not all of which will be compatible with QEMU’s licensing requirements.

How contributors could comply with DCO terms (b) or (c) for the output of AI content generators commonly available today is unclear. The QEMU project is not willing or able to accept the legal risks of non-compliance.

The QEMU project thus requires that contributors refrain from using AI content generators on patches intended to be submitted to the project, and will decline any contribution if use of AI is either known or suspected.

This policy does not apply to other uses of AI, such as researching APIs or algorithms, static analysis, or debugging, provided their output is not to be included in contributions.

Examples of tools impacted by this policy includes GitHub’s CoPilot, OpenAI’s ChatGPT, Anthropic’s Claude, and Meta’s Code Llama, and code/content generation agents which are built on top of such tools.

This policy may evolve as AI tools mature and the legal situation is clarifed. In the meanwhile, requests for exceptions to this policy will be evaluated by the QEMU project on a case by case basis. To be granted an exception, a contributor will need to demonstrate clarity of the license and copyright status for the tool’s output in relation to its training model and code, to the satisfaction of the project maintainers.