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: <aV_eiRqUsK2KWkww@laps>
Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2026 11:42:49 -0500
From: Sasha Levin <sashal@...nel.org>
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>, 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, Jan 08, 2026 at 11:56:19AM +0000, Lorenzo Stoakes wrote:
>diff --git a/Documentation/process/generated-content.rst b/Documentation/process/generated-content.rst
>index 917d6e93c66d..1423ed9d971d 100644
>--- a/Documentation/process/generated-content.rst
>+++ b/Documentation/process/generated-content.rst
>@@ -95,3 +95,11 @@ choose how they handle the contribution. For example, they might:
>  - Ask the submitter to explain in more detail about the contribution
>    so that the maintainer can feel comfortable that the submitter fully
>    understands how the code works.
>+
>+If tools permit you to generate series entirely automatically, expect
>+additional scrutiny.
>+
>+As with the output of any tooling, maintainers will not tolerate 'slop' -

Could you define what "slop" in the context of a kernel patch means? Clearly
it's not just innocent error, but it's not clear to me what line needs to be
crossed for a mistake to turn into "slop".

>+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.

We already have something like this in Documentation/process/howto.rst:

   "Before making any actual modifications to the Linux kernel code, it is
    imperative to understand how the code in question works."

I suppose that we can restate the same here, but whats the purpose? to put it
in front of whatever media outlets might be looking?

-- 
Thanks,
Sasha