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: <414139b0-92bb-4516-8286-732f2d5e6bda@lucifer.local>
Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2025 15:30:56 +0000
From: Lorenzo Stoakes <lorenzo.stoakes@...cle.com>
To: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>
Cc: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>, Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>,
        Sasha Levin <sashal@...nel.org>, 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

On Mon, Nov 10, 2025 at 08:19:24AM -0700, Jonathan Corbet wrote:
> Lorenzo Stoakes <lorenzo.stoakes@...cle.com> writes:
>
> > It also seems slightly odd to produce this in advance of the maintainer's
> > summit, as I felt there was some agreement that the topic should be discussed
> > there?
> >
> > Obviously there may be very good reasons for this but it'd be good for
> > them to be clarified and those who engaged in these discussions to be
> > cc'd also (or at least ping on threads linking!)
>
> The reasoning, from my point of view at least, was to have a starting
> point for the Maintainers Summit discussion.  Trying to start from
> scratch in Tokyo seems unlikely to get us far.

I Would understand if this was an RFC or there was a big block saying 'this
is not yet official' or something, but lt the moment it seems like a change
sent only to the TAB committee as an apparent 'fait complete' with no
indication of it being just a starting point? (forgive me if I missed it).

I think pinging the relevant threads would have been helpful, but maybe we
need a better procedure in general for this kind of thing.

In any case Thorsten posted on fedi so I was made aware and pinged others
:)

I'm not invited to the MS but I wondered if this planned to be discussed
there? I don't really care about my involvement, only that there is
community engagement on this.

>
> jon

Thanks, Lorenzo