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: <9a5ba780-7a93-4080-9dbd-7d83ca29c62e@lucifer.local>
Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2026 17:40:40 +0000
From: Lorenzo Stoakes <lorenzo.stoakes@...cle.com>
To: Sasha Levin <sashal@...nel.org>
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 11:42:49AM -0500, Sasha Levin wrote:
> 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".

I accepted James's suggested alternative in this thread.

>
> > +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?

I feel I've already addressed this in the thread.

>
> --
> Thanks,
> Sasha

Thanks, Lorenzo