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: <e7a2e69991943777f30743868bdc04332a52037b.camel@HansenPartnership.com>
Date: Thu, 08 Jan 2026 10:58:08 -0500
From: James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senPartnership.com>
To: Lorenzo Stoakes <lorenzo.stoakes@...cle.com>
Cc: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>, Dave Hansen <dave@...1.net>, 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>, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
 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, 2026-01-08 at 13:56 +0000, Lorenzo Stoakes wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 08, 2026 at 08:17:09AM -0500, James Bottomley wrote:
> > On Thu, 2026-01-08 at 11:56 +0000, Lorenzo Stoakes wrote:
[...]
> > > +
> > > +As with the output of any tooling,
> > 
> > 
> > >  maintainers will not tolerate 'slop' -
> > 
> > Just delete this phrase (partly because it's very tied to a non-
> > standard and very recent use of the word slop, but mostly because
> > it doesn't add anything actionable to the reader).
> 
> I mean I'm not expecting this to land given Linus's position :)
> 
> But if removing this sentence allowed the below in sure.
> 
> However personally I think it's very important to say 'slop' here.
> It's more so to make it abundantly clear that the kernel takes the
> position that we don't accept it.

Perhaps I can help clarify.  You're using the word "slop" to mean
output of tools that is actually wrong ... which can happen to any
tool, not just AI.  And you want any statement to include that
explicitly.

I'm saying anything you can't explain won't be accepted, which, I
think, necessarily includes any output the tool gets wrong.  But I
don't object to saying this in a more generic form, so how about this
as the compromise

---
+As with the output of any tooling,

The result can be incorrect or inappropriate so

+you are expected to understand and to be able to defend everything you
+submit. If you are unable to do so, maintainers may choose to reject
your
+series outright.
---

Regards,

James