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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <878qgdzyd2.fsf@trenco.lwn.net>
Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2025 08:44:09 -0700
From: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>
To: Lorenzo Stoakes <lorenzo.stoakes@...cle.com>
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

Lorenzo Stoakes <lorenzo.stoakes@...cle.com> writes:

> 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.

I agree that sending to those threads would have made sense.  Folks are
busy ... I didn't think of that, and it only occurred to me this weekend
that I knew a certain web site where it might make sense to post a
note... 

> 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.

The agenda has not been worked out, but this topic seems certain to be
there once it is.

jon